Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Androcles on 29 Dec 2009 15:44 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:6tmkj593emf34b0jft1bjc369pnir83pb3(a)4ax.com... > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. > > The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v > towards it, as measured in the source frame. > > According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the > source > frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v. > > Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, > the > incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in > the > mirror frame. > Multiply (c+v) by (c-v) which almost squares the result, so divide by c^2 and then take the root of that, then take the inverse and you'll have a fudge factor that unifuckates c+v and/or c-v to c. c = (c+/-v) / sqrt( (c+v) *(c-v) / c^2) c = (c+/-v) / sqrt( (c^2-v^2) / c^2) c = (c+/-v) / sqrt( c^2/c^2 - v^2/c^2) c = (c+/-v) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2) An Einstein supporter like you should have no trouble unifuckating as your hero Einstein did. Wilson unifuckation "proves" Einstein right.
From: YBM on 29 Dec 2009 15:55 Henry Wilson DSc a �crit : > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. > > The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v > towards it, as measured in the source frame. > > According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source > frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v. > > Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the > incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the > mirror frame. 2nd SR postulate. Alternatively you could apply Lorentz Transformations to verify that both speeds are c in the mirror frame. There is no much point to do it since SR postulates are equivalent to LTs (and are coherent). Anyway it could be a good exercise for *you* who happen to have never applied LTs to a single case in your whole miserable life.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Dec 2009 18:09 On 29.12.2009 21:14, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. > > The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v > towards it, as measured in the source frame. > > According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source > frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v. > > Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the > incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the > mirror frame. Thanks for yet another demonstration of Rabbidgian logic. :-) It goes like this: Since I, Ralph Rabbidge with the fake degrees assert that the speed of light transforms according to the Galilean transform, Einstein is proven wrong. So there!!! -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Inertial on 29 Dec 2009 18:06 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:6tmkj593emf34b0jft1bjc369pnir83pb3(a)4ax.com... > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. Not again .. haven't you learnt ANYTHING? > The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v > towards it, as measured in the source frame. > > According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the > source > frame. Yeup > They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v. In the source frame the light is moving at c (as in all inertial frames) and the mirror at v, so yes, the closing speed between the light and mirror as calculated by a source-frame observer is c+v incoming and after reflection the separation speed as calculated by a source-frame observer is c-v. > Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, > the > incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in > the > mirror frame. In the mirror frame the light is moving at c (as in all inertial frames) and the mirror is at rest, so yes, the closing speed between the light and mirror as calculated by a mirror-frame observer is c incoming and after reflection the separation speed as calculated by a mirror-frame observer is c. Closing and separation speed, just like times and distances, and velocities and momentum etc, are all relative in SR. So different observers will measure different speeds. The clocks in the source frame used to measure closing/separating speeds of c+v and c-v, but the clocks in the mirror frame are synchronized differently (so in the source frame they would appear to read different times instead of the same time), and so give different values for those speeds So ... basically you are saying you've proved SR to be wrong because you need someone to explain the second postulate to you. Only a proof that you don't understand SR .. not that we needed another one.
From: Tom Roberts on 29 Dec 2009 18:51
Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL. That is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made; instead, the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical behavior. > The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v > towards it, as measured in the source frame. > According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source > frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v. Yes, where the closing speeds are measured in the source frame. It is ALWAYS necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made (closing speeds are not measurements, they are calculations). By "frame" I assume you mean INERTIAL frame, with source and mirror at rest in their respective frames. I also assume vacuum in all light paths (except for source and mirror). I further assume some method of measuring the light pulses that does not negate these assumptions (in a gedanken I can do that, even though it cannot be done in the real world). > Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the > incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the > mirror frame. To measure their speeds in the mirror frame requires an observer at rest in the mirror frame, using clocks and rulers at rest in the mirror frame. These clocks and rulers are identical to the clocks and rulers at rest in the source frame, but are NOT congruent to them (that is: when one measures the distance between a given pair of events [#] using source-frame rulers, one gets a different value than if one measured the distance between the same events using mirror-frame rulers; similarly when one measures the time between a given pair of events using source-frame clocks, one gets a different value than if one measured the interval between the same events using mirror-frame clocks). NOTE: in general one must use multiple clocks; in all cases the clocks at rest in a given frame are synchronized in that frame before being used for any measurements. [#] an event is an idealized happening at a definite place and time. Here are examples: light pulse #357 is emitted by the source, light pulse #357 is reflected by the mirror. The relationships among measurements by source-frame and mirror-frame clocks and rulers are described by the Lorentz transform between the source and mirror frames. A direct consequence of these relationships is that ALL light rays are measured to propagate with speed c, in BOTH the source frame and the mirror frame. This means the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses ARE equal when measured in the mirror frame. It also means the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses ARE equal when measured in the source frame. And it also means that both of those measured speeds ARE equal to c. Note: I am not really an "Einstein supporter". Rather, I am a physicist. That is, I STUDY physics and use the theories which best model the physical phenomena of the world. For this sort of question by far the best model is Special Relativity (no other theory comes close, except for theories indistinguishable from SR). Tom Roberts |