relativity vs velocity addition
in [Relativity]
|
From: lkoluk2003 on 25 Nov 2006 05:37 lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com yazdi: > Hi, > Although the symmetric twin paradox can be explaied by ALT(Aether > theory with Lorentz Transformations) , I am a relativist. So after I > was sure SR(special relativity) is incorrect, I started to search > explanation(s) of the paradox in a relativist way. According to me the > starting point ought to be the velocity addition rule, because every > huge leap in physics is achieved by understanding the secrets of > velocity. Galileo set up a new phsics by the concepts of inertia and > independence of velocities in different axes(vector addition). SR and > GR(General Relativity) is also set up by claiming the velocity > additition rule is not a simple algebraic sum. I don't try it, but it > seems that the lorentz transformations can be derived from the velocity > addition rule which is (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) if v and w have the same > direction. Now I will try to show that if relativity principle(i.e. if > there is no absolute inertial frame) is true, then the speed of light > must be a constant relative to the source. > > Let there are two platforms A and B and within each platform there are > two observers Oa and Ob respectively. Let the platforms are two trains > and Ob is in the middle of the train B with a detector D. On each of > the two far sides of the train there is a clock and a light source. > When the clock ticks a predefined times, the light source fires a light > beam such that it will hit the detector on the middle of the train. > I.e. the light source Sf fires light beam from left to right and Sb > fires in opposite direction as shown in the following. > > ------------------ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > | | | Sf --------> D > <--------- Sb | > | Oa | | Cf Ob > Cb | > ------------------ > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Train A Train B -----> > x axis > > The distance between each light source and detector D is the same. > Detector gives two results: the two light beams hit at the same time > or in different times. > > My postulates are the followings: > > 1. The experiments within a train does not affected by the outside > objects which have a constant speed relative to it. > 2. The speed of light is direction independent within a train. > > > Experiment1: > Synchronize the clocks and set up such that the light sources will be > fired after n ticks. So they will fire at the same time according to > observer Ob. The relative speed of trains A and B is zero. So the same > thing is true for observer Oa. Of course , from the Ob's reference > frame the two lights must hit the detector at the same time with the > given postulates. This is the same for Oa. > > Experiment2: > Synchronize the clocks and set up such that the light sources will be > fired after n ticks. Place the clocks and light sources on the two far > sides of the train B as mentioned. The relative speed of trains A and > B is zero. So the clocks are synchronized according to both Oa and Ob. > Now let train B accelerates and reach a constant speed v relative to > train A after a while along the x axis. Then wait for the experiment > to be completed. According to Ob the experiment gives the same result. > I.e. the lights hit at the same time. Now examine what Oa see with the > assumption that the speed of light is always the same according to the > observer. > > >From Ob's reference frame: The clocks are still synchronized since they > share the same movement and so get the same affects. So the two light > beams are fired at the same time. The speed of the light train fired > from Sf is c and from Sb is -c. Still the distance between Sf and D is > the same with the distance between Sb and D although they are shorter > now. Let this distance be x. So, the travel time of the light beam > fired from Sf would be x/(c-v) and the travel time of the light beam > fired from Sb would be x/(c+v). Since v is greater than zero these > times are not equal and Oa predicts a different result from that of Ob. > So relativity principle conflicts with the postulate that the speed of > light is always the same according to the observer. > > Actually what above experiments show that if the relativity principle > is true and the speed of light is direction independent, then the speed > of light is direction independent relative to the source. Since the > direction independence of light speed is a proven fact(Michael&Morley > experiment and others), any theory conflicts with this also conflicts > with relativity principle. This means that the Lorentzian velocity > addition law conflicts with relativity principle. > > Lokman Kolukisa I an sorry, the figure is just jumbled. The correct figure is as follows. ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------- | | | Sf --------> D <--------- Sb | | Oa | | Cf Ob Cb | ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------- Train A Train B ----->x axis Lokman Kolukisa PS: I don't see anything to answer in the replies up to know. I am not a discussion guy that likes to writes to others and writes only since he likes to write. I write about physics because I think what I write will help the others to think about and solve some of the problems as just they help me to understand and think about them.
From: Sue... on 25 Nov 2006 05:57 lkoluk2...(a)yahoo.com wrote: [...] > > Lokman Kolukisa > > PS: I don't see anything to answer in the replies up to know. I am not > a discussion guy that likes to writes to others and writes only since > he likes to write. I write about physics because I think what I write > will help the others to think about and solve some of the problems as > just they help me to understand and think about them. If you want to use a particle model then you need to learn QED. http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html QED is easier to understand if you already know the wave model and Maxwell's equations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral You are not learning physics, but rather playing bellhop paradox games, without some foundation in electromagnetism. The trick to observer dependent light speed is here: << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures the relative strength of electric and magnetic >> fields. It is a function of source structure. http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html Paradox is resolved by considering material structures. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf Sue... http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
From: Paul B. Andersen on 25 Nov 2006 14:43 lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > Actually what above experiments show that if the relativity principle > is true and the speed of light is direction independent, then the speed > of light is direction independent relative to the source. Since the > direction independence of light speed is a proven fact(Michael&Morley > experiment and others), any theory conflicts with this also conflicts > with relativity principle. This means that the Lorentzian velocity > addition law conflicts with relativity principle. > > Lokman Kolukisa :-) Paul
From: Russell on 27 Nov 2006 15:05 Sue... wrote: .... > If you want to use a particle model then you need to learn QED. > http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html This piece of advice is pretty hilarious coming from a relativity disbeliever. > > QED is easier to understand if you already know the wave model > and Maxwell's equations. *And* special relativity, Sue. That pretty much puts the lie to your pretense of understanding any of the above. ....
From: Sue... on 27 Nov 2006 15:25
Russell wrote: > Sue... wrote: > > ... > > > If you want to use a particle model then you need to learn QED. > > http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html > > This piece of advice is pretty hilarious coming from a > relativity disbeliever. What is a "relativity disbeliever" ? Sue... > > > > > QED is easier to understand if you already know the wave model > > and Maxwell's equations. > > *And* special relativity, Sue. That pretty much puts the > lie to your pretense of understanding any of the above. > > ... |