Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
The spatial relationships between the discs and clocks is not clear. Can you draw a diagram of the experiment? harry On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:34 PM, John Berry wrote: > For brevity, I will explain it in sentence. and the possible results in a > few more, But the longer form solves questions and objections: > > Take 2 light sensors separated at an appropriate distance, the censors are > shaped like CD and are transparent, designated A and B, rotate them at high > enough velocity so that the time dilation associated with General > Relativity (GR) applying (gravitational equivalence time dilation) can be > measured, and let sensor A send a signal to both clocks, and sensor B also > sends a signal to both clocks. > If we expect light to be seen as C (assuming a vacuum) by both clocks we > have a problem since there are only 2 sensors, not 2 sets of sensors and > one close is slow. > > If light is somehow seems to be moving less than C by the non time dilated > clock, then if additional non-rotating sensors A2 and B2 are placed right > next to sensors A and B less than a mm apart then we would then expect to > find these sensors A2 and B2 to give the right answer to our normal clock > to get the expected velocity? > > But then censors B and B2 which are almost in the same exact place would > not see the photon at the same time, the second sensor B2 would see it > first, and later the slightly closer censor would! > > And it gets worse, from the rotating sensors and rotating clocks view > light is not taking the most direct path between the 2 censors, it is on an > angle, so the light is moving further in the rotated (slow clock) frame and > doing it in less time than the shorter distance would be expected to take > provided you assume that the previous example of B2 detecting something > before the ever so slightly closer B censor is not possible. > > About the only half way sensible way out of these impossibilities is to > assume that all the space between any 2 co-moving objects that could be > measuring light also gets time dilated?? And that is the most sensible but > still obviously wrong conclusion I can find. > > If you object that the time dilation means finding light the be faster > than C is fine, then read on, but note that even without time dilation the > light would still exceed C from taking a longer path.. > >
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem longer. The effect would be diminished. The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet paradoxically. If that does not help, then the linear example is: Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one on the ground frame. Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground frame clock. Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others making sure they both see the same light at the same time. Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest route, but it looks indirect to the train. How can both measure C for the light? Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be expected? Obviously assume a vacuum is present. Thanks for taking a look, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, H Veeder wrote: > The spatial relationships between the discs and clocks is not clear. > Can you draw a diagram of the experiment? > > harry > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:34 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> For brevity, I will explain it in sentence. and the possible results in a >> few more, But the longer form solves questions and objections: >> >> Take 2 light sensors separated at an appropriate distance, the censors >> are shaped like CD and are transparent, designated A and B, rotate them at >> high enough velocity so that the time dilation associated with General >> Relativity (GR) applying (gravitational equivalence time dilation) can be >> measured, and let sensor A send a signal to both clocks, and sensor B also >> sends a signal to both clocks. >> If we expect light to be seen as C (assuming a vacuum) by both clocks we >> have a problem since there are only 2 sensors, not 2 sets of sensors and >> one close is slow. >> >> If light is somehow seems to be moving less than C by the non time >> dilated clock, then if additional non-rotating sensors A2 and B2 are placed >> right next to sensors A and B less than a mm apart then we would then >> expect to find these sensors A2 and B2 to give the right answer to our >> normal clock to get the expected velocity? >> >> But then censors B and B2 which are almost in the same exact place would >> not see the photon at the same time, the second sensor B2 would see it >> first, and later the slightly closer censor would! >> >> And it gets worse, from the rotating sensors and rotating clocks view >> light is not taking the most direct path between the 2 censors, it is on an >> angle, so the light is moving further in the rotated (slow clock) frame and >> doing it in less time than the shorter distance would be expected to take >> provided you assume that the previous example of B2 detecting something >> before the ever so slightly closer B censor is not possible. >> >> About the only half way sensible way out of these impossibilities is to >> assume that all the space between any 2 co-moving objects that could be >> measuring light also gets time dilated?? And that is the most sensible but >> still obviously wrong conclusion I can find. >> >> If you object that the time dilation means finding light the be faster >> than C is fine, then read on, but note that even without time dilation the >> light would still exceed C from taking a longer path.. >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
BTW I should note that while General Relativity predicts time dilation from acceleration, this is apparently not so. Of course this merely means the main cause of disagreement will not be the different rate the clocks keep time, but the path the see the light to take to be straight. This might have a real impact on the actual experiment, requiring higher linear velocity and greater distances to pick the results up without improving the clock, but as a thought experiment is got a bit simpler. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John Berry wrote: > Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png > > BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a claim > of General Relativity that acceleration does this. > Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. > > But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem > longer. > The effect would be diminished. > > The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides of > the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab frame > make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to > reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly > contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet > paradoxically. > > If that does not help, then the linear example is: > Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one > on the ground frame. > Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground frame > clock. > Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others making > sure they both see the same light at the same time. > Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest > route, but it looks indirect to the train. > > How can both measure C for the light? > Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be > expected? > > Obviously assume a vacuum is present. > > Thanks for taking a look, > John > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, H Veeder wrote: > >> The spatial relationships between the discs and clocks is not clear. >> Can you draw a diagram of the experiment? >> >> harry >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:34 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> For brevity, I will explain it in sentence. and the possible results in >>> a few more, But the longer form solves questions and objections: >>> >>> Take 2 light sensors separated at an appropriate distance, the censors >>> are shaped like CD and are transparent, designated A and B, rotate them at >>> high enough velocity so that the time dilation associated with General >>> Relativity (GR) applying (gravitational equivalence time dilation) can be >>> measured, and let sensor A send a signal to both clocks, and sensor B also >>> sends a signal to both clocks. >>> If we expect light to be seen as C (assuming a vacuum) by both clocks we >>> have a problem since there are only 2 sensors, not 2 sets of sensors and >>> one close is slow. >>> >>> If light is somehow seems to be moving less than C by the non time >>> dilated clock, then if additional non-rotating sensors A2 and B2 are placed >>> right next to sensors A and B less than a mm apart then we would then >>> expect to find these sensors A2 and B2 to give the right answer to our >>> normal clock to get the expected velocity? >>> >>> But then censors B and B2 which are almost in the same exact place would >>> not see the photon at the same time, the second sensor B2 would see it >>> first, and later the slightly closer censor would! >>> >>> And it gets worse, from the rotating sensors and rotating clocks view >>> light is not taking the most direct path between the 2 censors, it is on an >>> angle, so the light is moving further in the rotated (slow clock) frame and >>> doing it in less time than the shorter distance would be expected to take >>> provided you assume that the previous example of B2 detecting something >>> before the ever so slightly closer B censor is not possible. >>> >>> About the only half way sensible way out of these impossibilities is to >>> assume that all the space between any 2 co-moving objects that could be >>> measuring light also gets time dilated?? And that is the most sensible but >>> still obviously wrong conclusion I can find. >>> >>> If you object that the time dilation means finding light the be faster >>> than C is fine, then read on, but note that even without time dilation the >>> light would still exceed C from taking a longer path.. >>> >>> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. You should illustrate that as well. harry On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry wrote: > Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png > > BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a claim > of General Relativity that acceleration does this. > Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. > > But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem > longer. > The effect would be diminished. > > The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides of > the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab frame > make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to > reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly > contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet > paradoxically. > > If that does not help, then the linear example is: > Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one > on the ground frame. > Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground frame > clock. > Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others making > sure they both see the same light at the same time. > Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest > route, but it looks indirect to the train. > > How can both measure C for the light? > Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be > expected? > > Obviously assume a vacuum is present. > > Thanks for taking a look, > John > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, H Veeder wrote: > >> The spatial relationships between the discs and clocks is not clear. >> Can you draw a diagram of the experiment? >> >> harry >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:34 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> For brevity, I will explain it in sentence. and the possible results in >>> a few more, But the longer form solves questions and objections: >>> >>> Take 2 light sensors separated at an appropriate distance, the censors >>> are shaped like CD and are transparent, designated A and B, rotate them at >>> high enough velocity so that the time dilation associated with General >>> Relativity (GR) applying (gravitational equivalence time dilation) can be >>> measured, and let sensor A send a signal to both clocks, and sensor B also >>> sends a signal to both clocks. >>> If we expect light to be seen as C (assuming a vacuum) by both clocks we >>> have a problem since there are only 2 sensors, not 2 sets of sensors and >>> one close is slow. >>> >>> If light is somehow seems to be moving less than C by the non time >>> dilated clock, then if additional non-rotating sensors A2 and B2 are placed >>> right next to sensors A and B less than a mm apart then we would then >>> expect to find these sensors A2 and B2 to give the right answer to our >>> normal clock to get the expected velocity? >>> >>> But then censors B and B2 which are almost in the same exact place would >>> not see the photon at the same time, the second sensor B2 would see it >>> first, and later the slightly closer censor would! >>> >>> And it gets worse, from the rotating sensors and rotating clocks view >>> light is not taking the most direct path between the 2 censors, it is on an >>> angle, so the light is moving further in the rotated (slow clock) frame and >>> doing it in less time than the shorter distance would be expected to take >>> provided you assume that the previous example of B2 detecting something >>> before the ever so slightly closer B censor is not possible. >>> >>> About the only half way sensible way out of these impossibilities is to >>> assume that all the space between any 2 co-moving objects that could be >>> measuring light also gets time dilated?? And that is the most sensible but >>> still obviously wrong conclusion I can find. >>> >>> If you object that the time dilation means finding light the be faster >>> than C is fine, then read on, but note that even without time dilation the >>> light would still exceed C from taking a longer path.. >>> >>> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! You give me faith in humans! Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder wrote: > That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like > solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. > You should illustrate that as well. > harry > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png >> >> BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a >> claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. >> Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. >> >> But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem >> longer. >> The effect would be diminished. >> >> The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides >> of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab >> frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to >> reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly >> contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet >> paradoxically. >> >> If that does not help, then the linear example is: >> Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one >> on the ground frame. >> Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground >> frame clock. >> Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others making >> sure they both see the same light at the same time. >> Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest >> route, but it looks indirect to the train. >> >> How can both measure C for the light? >> Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be >> expected? >> >> Obviously assume a vacuum is present. >> >> Thanks for taking a look, >> John >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, H Veeder wrote: >> >>> The spatial relationships between the discs and clocks is not clear. >>> Can you draw a diagram of the experiment? >>> >>> harry >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:34 PM, John Berry wrote: >>> For brevity, I will explain it in sentence. and the possible results in a few more, But the longer form solves questions and objections: Take 2 light sensors separated at an appropriate distance, the censors are shaped like CD and are transparent, designated A and B, rotate them at high enough velocity so that the time dilation associated with General Relativity (GR) applying (gravitational equivalence time dilation) can be measured, and let sensor A send a signal to both clocks, and sensor B also sends a signal to both clocks. If we expect light to be seen as C (assuming a vacuum) by both clocks we have a problem since there are only 2 sensors, not 2 sets of sensors and one close is slow. If light is somehow seems to be moving less than C by the non time dilated clock, then if additional non-rotating sensors A2 and B2 are placed right next to sensors A and B less than a mm apart then we would then expect to find these sensors A2 and B2 to give the right answer to our normal clock to get the expected velocity? But then censors B and B2 which are almost in the same exact place would not see the photon at the same time, the second sensor B2 would see it first, and later the slightly closer censor would! And it gets worse, from the rotating sensors and rotating clocks view light is not taking the most direct path between the 2 censors, it is on an angle, so the light is moving further in the rotated (slow clock) frame and doing it in less time than the shorter distance would be expected to take provided you assume that the previous example of B2 detecting something before the ever so slightly closer B censor is not possible. About the only half way sensible way out of these impossibilities is to assume that all the space between any 2 co-moving objects that could be measuring light also gets time dilated?? And that is the most sensible but still obviously wrong conclusion I can find. If you object that the time dilation means finding light the be faster than C is fine, then read on, but note that even without time dilation the light would still exceed C from taking a longer path.. >>> >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
The "linear example" you describe below. Harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry wrote: > I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! > > You give me faith in humans! > > Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder wrote: > >> That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like >> solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. >> You should illustrate that as well. >> harry >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png >>> >>> BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a >>> claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. >>> Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. >>> >>> But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem >>> longer. >>> The effect would be diminished. >>> >>> The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides >>> of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab >>> frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to >>> reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly >>> contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet >>> paradoxically. >>> >>> If that does not help, then the linear example is: >>> Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one >>> on the ground frame. >>> Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground >>> frame clock. >>> Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others >>> making sure they both see the same light at the same time. >>> Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest >>> route, but it looks indirect to the train. >>> >>> How can both measure C for the light? >>> Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be >>> expected? >>> >>> Obviously assume a vacuum is present. >>> >>> Thanks for taking a look, >>> John >>> >>> >>>
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
On second thought, I am not so sure about the "linear example". I will need to see it illustrated to be sure. harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder wrote: > The "linear example" you describe below. > > Harry > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry wrote: > >> I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! >> >> You give me faith in humans! >> >> Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder wrote: >> >>> That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like >>> solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. >>> You should illustrate that as well. >>> harry >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry wrote: >>> Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem longer. The effect would be diminished. The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet paradoxically. If that does not help, then the linear example is: Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one on the ground frame. Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground frame clock. Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others making sure they both see the same light at the same time. Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest route, but it looks indirect to the train. How can both measure C for the light? Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be expected? Obviously assume a vacuum is present. Thanks for taking a look, John
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it is almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same minus the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and would still experience the SR style of time dilation... Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to speed up in these rotating frames or train frames*! But even IF this time acceleration of the moving clock can be massaged into SR somehow, then we can complicate matters further by adding a second light source on the rotating frame that reverses the relationship... BUT now the speed of light can not possibly be C for the rotating frame as the clock would need to simultaneously be seen to tick faster and slower! And that is an easy conclusion to come to but I recommend not trying to imagine this as it will do your head in :) John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder wrote: > On second thought, I am not so sure about the "linear example". > I will need to see it illustrated to be sure. > > harry > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder wrote: > >> The "linear example" you describe below. >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! >>> >>> You give me faith in humans! >>> >>> Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder wrote: >>> That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. You should illustrate that as well. harry On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry wrote: > Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png > > BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a > claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. > Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. > > But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would > seem longer. > The effect would be diminished. > > The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite > sides of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the > lab frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt > to reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and > utterly contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet > paradoxically. > > If that does not help, then the linear example is: > Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, > one on the ground frame. > Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground > frame clock. > Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others > making sure they both see the same light at the same time. > Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest > route, but it looks indirect to the train. > > How can both measure C for the light? > Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would > be expected? > > Obviously assume a vacuum is present. > > Thanks for taking a look, > John > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the other frame dilated. My experiment sees the moving frame from the stationary lab/track frame and sees the clock on the train or the rotating form to be accelerated in time. So the observations up to this point match, except that SR says that you can't make a clock go faster like this. And if you reverse which frame the light comes from, this effects which frame must see time which way, or again do both which requires both results again. The point I guess is that this is either an experiment that makes mince meat of the speed of light or makes observations of clocks insanely paradoxical since they aren't receding at high speed so we cam observe the time dilation that is meant to be happening in real time so to speak. John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Berry wrote: > If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it is > almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same minus > the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time > dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and > would still experience the SR style of time dilation... > > Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an > argument here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity > > The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the > clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the > train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to speed > up in these rotating frames or train frames*! > > But even IF this time acceleration of the moving clock can be massaged > into SR somehow, then we can complicate matters further by adding a second > light source on the rotating frame that reverses the relationship... > > BUT now the speed of light can not possibly be C for the rotating frame as > the clock would need to simultaneously be seen to tick faster and slower! > > And that is an easy conclusion to come to but I recommend not trying to > imagine this as it will do your head in :) > > John > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder wrote: > >> On second thought, I am not so sure about the "linear example". >> I will need to see it illustrated to be sure. >> >> harry >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder wrote: >> >>> The "linear example" you describe below. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry wrote: >>> I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! You give me faith in humans! Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder wrote: > That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like > solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. > You should illustrate that as well. > harry > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry > wrote: > >> Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png >> >> BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a >> claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. >> Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. >> >> But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would >> seem longer. >> The effect would be diminished. >> >> The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite >> sides of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the >> lab frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any >> attempt >> to reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and >> utterly contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet >> paradoxically. >> >> If that does not help, then the linear example is: >> Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, >> one on the ground frame. >> Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground >> frame clock. >> Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others >> making sure they both see the same light at the same time. >> Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the >> shortest route, but it looks indirect to the train. >> >> How can both measure C for the light? >> Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would >> be expected? >> >> Obviously assume a vacuum is present. >> >> Thanks for taking a look, >> John >> >> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
Ok, here is the way to really hit this one home, but it it a little more complex. So hopefully you can follow that in a large way there is a similarity between the Wikipedia argument and mine. Let's setup a hybrid for fun, we will place mirrors either side of the of the sensors in my experiment and move them closer together. Let's have a periodic light source release red photons (it must repeat since the red photons will be lost out the side every so many bounces) from the moving frame and the stationary frame will launch blue photons. Now we have a rotating and non-rotating censor that can each count each colour of photon that passes though it. So from the rotating frame the red light has a more direct path and the rotating sensor must detect more red photon passes. >From the lab frame the blue photons have bounced more times since they have the more direct route and must register higher on the stationary sensor. If you watched the data coming in from the 2 sensors which might be a fraction of a mm apart, they obviously could not agree on when a photon is present or which colour! But even this doesn't work since how can the mirrors reflect light from a frame they aren't in Since the mirrors are biased to their frame (whatever that is) then um well, er.. Well how can you describe reality with a theory of unreality. John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:58 PM, John Berry wrote: > Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing > about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock > as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING > constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the > other frame dilated. > > My experiment sees the moving frame from the stationary lab/track frame > and sees the clock on the train or the rotating form to be accelerated in > time. > > So the observations up to this point match, except that SR says that you > can't make a clock go faster like this. > And if you reverse which frame the light comes from, this effects which > frame must see time which way, or again do both which requires both results > again. > > The point I guess is that this is either an experiment that makes mince > meat of the speed of light or makes observations of clocks insanely > paradoxical since they aren't receding at high speed so we cam observe the > time dilation that is meant to be happening in real time so to speak. > > John > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it >> is almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same >> minus the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time >> dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and >> would still experience the SR style of time dilation... >> >> Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an >> argument here: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity >> >> The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the >> clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the >> train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to >> speed up in these rotating frames or train frames*! >> >> But even IF this time acceleration of the moving clock can be massaged >> into SR somehow, then we can complicate matters further by adding a second >> light source on the rotating frame that reverses the relationship... >> >> BUT now the speed of light can not possibly be C for the rotating frame >> as the clock would need to simultaneously be seen to tick faster and slower! >> >> And that is an easy conclusion to come to but I recommend not trying to >> imagine this as it will do your head in :) >> >> John >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder wrote: >> >>> On second thought, I am not so sure about the "linear example". >>> I will need to see it illustrated to be sure. >>> >>> harry >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder wrote: >>> The "linear example" you describe below. Harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry wrote: > I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! > > You give me faith in humans! > > Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder wrote: > >> That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks >> like solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test >> SR. You should illustrate that as well. >> harry >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry >> wrote: >> >>> Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png >>> >>> BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a >>> c
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
John, Unfortunately, upon further reflection these two thought experiments aren't paradoxical, because they involve sending a signal over a non-zero distance. Whenever such signaling is present a putative paradox vanishes when analysed according to the principles of relativity theory . Therefore, any thought experiment which produces a stable paradox cannot involve such communication. One such though experiment is the trip paradox which we already discussed. A variant of this thought experiment is discussed extensively on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox One strategy to make the paradox vanish involves altering the terms of the thought experiment by introducing a layer of signaling that was not present on any level in the original thought experiment. (This is analogous to changing the terms of a cold fusion experiment to make the excess heat vanish). Another strategy is to include acceleration which makes the total aging asymmetrical, but it does not address the paradox of who is aging more during the period uniform of velocity. (This is analogous to uncovering some chemical effect which does not account for all the excess heat and then to discount the remaining excess heat). In my next post I will present what I think is a stable paradox involving length contraction. It resembles the ladder-in-barn or the train-in-tunnel paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox Of course these aren't stable paradoxes because under closer scrutiny they involve signaling over a distance. Harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, John Berry wrote: > Ok, here is the way to really hit this one home, but it it a little more > complex. > > So hopefully you can follow that in a large way there is a similarity > between the Wikipedia argument and mine. > > Let's setup a hybrid for fun, we will place mirrors either side of the of > the sensors in my experiment and move them closer together. > > Let's have a periodic light source release red photons (it must repeat > since the red photons will be lost out the side every so many bounces) from > the moving frame and the stationary frame will launch blue photons. > > Now we have a rotating and non-rotating censor that can each count each > colour of photon that passes though it. > > So from the rotating frame the red light has a more direct path and the > rotating sensor must detect more red photon passes. > From the lab frame the blue photons have bounced more times since they > have the more direct route and must register higher on the stationary > sensor. > > If you watched the data coming in from the 2 sensors which might be a > fraction of a mm apart, they obviously could not agree on when a photon is > present or which colour! > > But even this doesn't work since how can the mirrors reflect light from a > frame they aren't in > Since the mirrors are biased to their frame (whatever that is) then um > well, er.. > > Well how can you describe reality with a theory of unreality. > > John > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:58 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing >> about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock >> as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING >> constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the >> other frame dilated. >> >> My experiment sees the moving frame from the stationary lab/track frame >> and sees the clock on the train or the rotating form to be accelerated in >> time. >> >> So the observations up to this point match, except that SR says that you >> can't make a clock go faster like this. >> And if you reverse which frame the light comes from, this effects which >> frame must see time which way, or again do both which requires both results >> again. >> >> The point I guess is that this is either an experiment that makes mince >> meat of the speed of light or makes observations of clocks insanely >> paradoxical since they aren't receding at high speed so we cam observe the >> time dilation that is meant to be happening in real time so to speak. >> >> John >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it >>> is almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same >>> minus the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time >>> dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and >>> would still experience the SR style of time dilation... >>> >>> Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an >>> argument here: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity >>> >>> The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the >>> clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the >>> train from the ground it would only make
Re: [Vo]:Another attack on the constancy of the speed of light
I have the following argument which responds to your points I believe. Optional:* Argument why rotating frames must experience time distortion under SR:* *Firstly we can observe that if the linear velocity of the rim of a rotating disk would have the observer on that disk see a light clock in a stationary frame be seen to take an angled path rather than a direct path between the mirrors, then we must assume his time is accelerated to see the longer path be C , or at least it will seem to be to him compared to the stationary frame. And when is motion perfectly linear in practice?* Ok, so if a time contradiction (paradox) occurs between observers on the periphery of rotating disk and stationary observers, then this is very very different to the classic twin paradox. In the twin paradox the 2 observers are getting further apart, and as they do, there are issues with trying to compare their rates of time, but the main problem is that while the amount of time in discrepancy grows making the paradox grows, the issue of non-simultaneity at distance grows. These 2 grow in lock-step making us unable to use this as evidence against SR. But if we do this on a rotating frame, non-simultaneity has an upper bound that is quite small, and yet the amount of paradoxical time grows and grows to infinity if we do not end the experiment. Let each frame see 100 year pass in their frame and only 10 years or less for the other. How can this paradox exist when real time communication between the frames seems possible otherwise! Additionally what happens when it is ended? And another paradox exists, while always in view and appearing to be stationary, observers at zero and 180 degrees would actually be moving in opposite directions and expect great symmetrical time dilation, and while a light clock would 'appear' unaffected, we have established that if a time dilation exists between the stationary and rotating frame and a light clock in the center would always appear to be in view and unaffected in appearance then we know that we can't trust appearance if our view is changing. So the time dilation must be occurring at an even greater rate between opposite points on the rotating frame as the relative velocity is greater despite the fact that they can see each other. Other arguments that the opposite points on the disk would undergo time dilation relative each other, such as the time dilation changing from zero to huge based on subtle changes in motion (almost linear to perfectly linear to). John
