Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Physics]
|
From: JT on 21 Feb 2010 20:51 On 22 Feb, 01:22, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 2:19 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 Feb, 21:13, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 21 Feb, 20:53, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 21 Feb, 20:39, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Maybe, just maybe you'll understand this (although, most likely not). > > > > > Let's consider your emitter hypothesis. When a system is moving along > > > > > at some speed v, a wavefront would be propelled forward at c' -> c + > > > > > v, in the rearward direction c'' -> c - v. Now let's setup an > > > > > experiment that will test this. We designate a 'tripwire' > > > > > perpendicular to two parallel rails which each contain a carriage > > > > > containing a strobe that fires hitting the trip. We now place these > > > > > carriages equal distance up & down line from the trip and set it up so > > > > > that each hit the trip at the same instant moving at some +/-v. We > > > > > will place a photo-detector at a point equal distance from the rails > > > > > at some distance d from the trip line. If your idea is right the > > > > > detector will record two pulses d/c' and d/c''. If, otoh c is > > > > > independent of source speed the detector will record a single pulse as > > > > > both flashes arrive at the same time d/c. . This has significance for > > > > > astronomical observations. > > > > > What i basicly say is that you can not let a photons pass thru an > > > > optical lins they will be emitted from the lins at c in the lins > > > > restspace. > > That blows the MMX et al since the beam splitter is a lens... > > > > > You must use a travelling *rig* in vaccua at velocity v, with two > > > > emitters. > > That blows the MMX et al since it was done on Earth in air... > > > > > You emit two lighpulses/photonshowers parallel and use two *detectors > > > > spatially separated by distance* aligned parallel like the > > > > emitters,now you have a distance to start with. > > No, that was not what was suggested... > > > > > Now you just must let the rig travel different velocities to see if > > > > timings between D1 and D2 > > > > differ at different velocities. > > Same velocity, opposite directions... Triggered at the same instant > along a line equal distance to a single detector... > > > > > And they will.... proving emitter theory correct. > > So, two pulses should be detected, right? > > > > Do you understand how a setup must be done to prove emiiter theory > > > correct and invariant lightspeed wrong. Well i am sure you do and i am > > > pretty confident that everyone in SR community does both now how to do > > > it and what the outcome will be. Afterall you already introdced > > > closing speeds..... > > Yes, since the one above would do just that... > > > > So... will you do it or will you keep up your juggling con act for > > > another decade or two? > > No, since I'm not the one claiming validity of a ballistic light > model. It up to your ilk to prove your point. The evidence is > overwhelmingly against you. But the experiment above would do the > job. Yes it certainly would prove me right but i am not an engineer i leave that for others better suited. But the model for the experiment is valid and will show variant lightspeed ala emitter theory. And i also already proved my point in a theoretical setup in another thread nonone even dared to answer which of my two suggested scenarios with the lightcones, you and they are fully aware that the question can not be answered without invalidating SR, so they just let it hang together with the physics. > > > What people think of Einsteins con act is really not that important, > > > what is important is to find out how light moving between two points > > > in vaccua behave, i hope we agree on that. > > Now you don't know how ironic that is talking to me :) > > > > And you will never get a correct answer using one light pulse passing > > > same two lenses in a detector as soon it pass first lens it will > > > travel at c relative the detector. > > I didn't propose a single light pulse, or two lens... > > > > Do you understand the proble with michel morleysson and other setups > > > that claim to prove emitter theroy ... > > Not by the criteria you specified above. But yes, a totally null > result of the MMX is consistent with a ballistic model. There are > other problems however. > > > I understand that an experiment that shows invariant velocity of light > > to be bothering, but just dissapear from thread what kind of turtle > > tactic is that? > > Huh? But, I will get quickly bored by irrational responses. I will > also not tolerate rude or insulting behavior. > > > You just pretend like the experiment never was proposed and keep on > > juggling with your friends and speculating about wormholes, barn and > > pole, twins paradoxes? > > Ah Contraire, the ballistic model has been well tested, and shown > invalid... Yeah by brainless peoples setup............ Well you can only see so long > > Is that physic when you deny the nature of light the correct > > interpretation, i don't think so. > > You guys need to come back to reality i don't say you can not watch > > sci-fi movies, just that your proposed theories should have some > > connection to reality. > > > Feel free comback comment on the setup, that osterich behaviour > > sticking your head into wormholes as fast problems shows up, isn't > > really flattering.... > > This is irrational... Well maybe there is people with enginering skills who actually will try out my suggested experimental setup. When they do the invariant lightspeed postulat will be proven wrong along with Einstein. 1.Accelerable emitter rig, 2 synchronized emitters, 2 spatially separated detectors with clocks that is what is needed to prove SR and invariant light wrong. JT
From: Ste on 22 Feb 2010 13:18 On 21 Feb, 18:31, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > remains a mystery to you. That's quite true. > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > tests for this hypothesis. > > Several things, > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity. > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > space-time'). Indeed. I still can't help thinking that the "physical stresses imposed by the medium" seems just as ad-hoc.
From: Paul Stowe on 22 Feb 2010 13:59 On Feb 22, 10:18 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb, 18:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > > remains a mystery to you. > > That's quite true. > > > > > > > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > > tests for this hypothesis. > > > Several things, > > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity.. > > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > > space-time'). > > Indeed. I still can't help thinking that the "physical stresses > imposed by the medium" seems just as ad-hoc. OK, let's try a visual explanation. As is well observed disturbances in a medium propagate a the root mean speed of its underlying kinetic particles/entities. Movement of sources does change this. This IS a signature characteristic of mediums. So, let take a mundane speaker which vibrates with a fixed displacement of x. As it strokes forward it 'pushes' the medium resulting in a pulse propagating forward at c. Then at 1/2x it reverses, first returning to centerline -1/2x and then continuing backwards another -1/2x, then reversing again. The time this takes is based upon frequency but certainly isn't instantaneous. So, our displacement when 'at rest' is +/-1/2x for a total of x. Now start it moving at some speed v, less than c. It continues to stroke +/- 0.5x but, relative to the medium's rest frame: 1. what does the physical displacement of the diaphragm look like? 2. as a result of the answer to #1 what will the pulses look like in the medium frame of reference? To give you another big clue look at the mathematical roots of the Lorentz Transform (Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]) Take c - v & c + v Then the product of these, (c - v)(c + v) -> c^2 - v^2 Factor out c, c^2(1 - [v/c]^2) thus for any condition with v > 0 c' = cSqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) Therefore the ratio of c'/c is always Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) or the signature Lorentz factor. This should, perhaps, suggest something about the physical basis of the term. Big hint, it not just because that's what the 'structure' is observed to be. Paul Stowe
From: PD on 22 Feb 2010 14:35 On Feb 22, 12:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 10:18 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 21 Feb, 18:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > > > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > > > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > > > remains a mystery to you. > > > That's quite true. > > > > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > > > tests for this hypothesis. > > > > Several things, > > > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > > > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > > > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > > > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > > > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > > > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > > > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > > > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > > > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > > > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity. > > > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > > > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > > > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > > > space-time'). > > > Indeed. I still can't help thinking that the "physical stresses > > imposed by the medium" seems just as ad-hoc. > > OK, let's try a visual explanation. As is well observed disturbances > in a medium propagate a the root mean speed of its underlying kinetic > particles/entities. This is only true in a *gaseous* medium, and even then it fails when the medium becomes too rarified. It does not work in liquid or solid media. > Movement of sources does change this. This IS a > signature characteristic of mediums. And again this is true only in a small subclass of media. > So, let take a mundane speaker > which vibrates with a fixed displacement of x. As it strokes forward > it 'pushes' the medium resulting in a pulse propagating forward at c. However, note that the speaker cone is not moving at speed c. This we know from a simple comparison of stroboscopic photography of speaker cones, combined with time-of-flight signal measurement of the emerging sound. In fact, it's patently obvious that a speaker cone that can deliver two tones an octave apart (fo and 2fo) has maximum cone speed that differs by a factor of 2, but the signal speed at those two frequencies does not vary by a factor of 2. > Then at 1/2x it reverses, first returning to centerline -1/2x and then > continuing backwards another -1/2x, then reversing again. The time > this takes is based upon frequency but certainly isn't instantaneous. > So, our displacement when 'at rest' is +/-1/2x for a total of x. Now > start it moving at some speed v, less than c. It continues to stroke > +/- 0.5x but, relative to the medium's rest frame: > > 1. what does the physical displacement of the diaphragm > look like? > 2. as a result of the answer to #1 what will the pulses look > like in the medium frame of reference? > > To give you another big clue look at the mathematical roots of the > Lorentz Transform (Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]) > > Take c - v & c + v > > Then the product of these, (c - v)(c + v) -> c^2 - v^2 > > Factor out c, > > c^2(1 - [v/c]^2) > > thus for any condition with v > 0 > > c' = cSqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) > > Therefore the ratio of c'/c is always Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) or the > signature Lorentz factor. > > This should, perhaps, suggest something about the physical basis of > the term. Big hint, it not just because that's what the 'structure' > is observed to be. > > Paul Stowe
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 07:04
If SR is wrong, how come particle accelerators like CERN work properly? |