relativity vs velocity addition
in [Relativity]
|
From: lkoluk2003 on 23 Nov 2006 07:23 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
From: Sue... on 23 Nov 2006 08:19 lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Hi, > Although the symmetric twin paradox can be explaied by ALT(Aether > theory with Lorentz Transformations) , I am a relativist. Do relativists rewrite Einsten's papers for him? ;-) > 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). Einsten's notions about particle light confuse this issue immensely. << The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology, photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on which the prize decision rested only in connection with emission and absorption processes. The Committee says that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >> http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html> > 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. The Lorentz transformation is simply to adjust an imaginary Euclidean reference frame for the magnetic component of the light. Note in eq 511 http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html ....it is an operation between the writers ears. There is no mechanism in particle light to effect observer constancy of c and resolve the postulates of SR. You will chase your tail with absurdities, (or take up heavy drinking) until you have enough electromagnetism to understand wave impedance of coupling structures. http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html If you want a shortcut you might try moving submarines signaling with sonar and don't fret about vacuums and ethers. Sue... http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm P.S> Einstein couldn't write an unambiguous tho't experiment for particle light and SR so please forgive me for offering no comment on your attempt. > > 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
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 23 Nov 2006 12:56 <lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1164284610.766809.65870(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hi, > Although the symmetric twin paradox can be explaied by ALT(Aether > theory with Lorentz Transformations) , I am a relativist. Clearly not, since you didn't understand the first word of what people were explaining to you to help you out of your misery in your previous thread. I think I know what you need: a good spanking. Dirk Vdm
From: Martin Hogbin on 23 Nov 2006 13:52 "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:khl9h.200180$Ga3.3078278(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > <lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1164284610.766809.65870(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Hi, > > Although the symmetric twin paradox can be explaied by ALT(Aether > > theory with Lorentz Transformations) , I am a relativist. > > Clearly not, since you didn't understand the first word of what > people were explaining to you to help you out of your misery > in your previous thread. > I think I know what you need: a good spanking. Where do they all come from? Martin Hogbin
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 23 Nov 2006 13:49
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123(a)hogbin.org> wrote in message news:WvadnYSQTu4ecfjYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:khl9h.200180$Ga3.3078278(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> >> <lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1164284610.766809.65870(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Hi, >> > Although the symmetric twin paradox can be explaied by ALT(Aether >> > theory with Lorentz Transformations) , I am a relativist. >> >> Clearly not, since you didn't understand the first word of what >> people were explaining to you to help you out of your misery >> in your previous thread. >> I think I know what you need: a good spanking. > > Where do they all come from? .... all the lonely people :-) Dirk Vdm |