The round trip time of light is always constant because that is how a clock ticks and is the definition of time itself.
To the Photon Acceleration Effect Moon, Russell<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Moon,+R&fullauthor=Moon,%20Russell&charset=UTF-8&db_key=AST> American Physical Society, Texas Section APS/AAPT/SPS Joint Spring Meeting, March 23-25, 2006, abstract #POS.008 Using the principles of the Vortex Theory, it was theorized that when a photon encounters an electromagnetic field, both the velocity and the frequency of the photon will increase. To prove this revolutionary idea an experiment was devised using a laser interferometer and two electromagnets. The electromagnets were arranged so that when the beam splitter divided the initial beam of laser light into two secondary beams; one of the two secondary beams passed back and forth between the two magnets. With the DC current to the electromagnets turned off, the two beams formed an interference pattern on the target screen. When the current to the electromagnets was suddenly turned on, the pattern fluctuated wildly until the two beams again reached a quiescent state creating a stable pattern on the screen; when the current to the electromagnets was suddenly turned off, again the pattern fluctuated wildly until it reached a quiescent state forming the initial stable pattern on the screen. It was determined that this new effect was a phenomenon created by the increasing frequency of the laser light whose velocity is increasing as it passes between the expanding electromagnetic field of the magnets. Because it is a new phenomenon in science revealing that the speed of light is not a constant but indeed can be varied, it possesses great historical significance. It is called the Photon Acceleration Effect. Although much more detailed work needs to be done investigating this new and revolutionary phenomenon in nature, it is reasonable to conclude that it was created by an increase in the frequency of the photons passing through the electromagnetic. Also, it must be stated that the discovery of this effect was predicted and discovered using the principles of the Vortex Theory. 1. . Konstantin A. Gridnev, Russell G. Moon, Victor V. Vasiliev. Experiment that discovered the Photon Acceleration Effect, Book of abstracts International Symposium on Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies (OMEG05), New Horizon of Nuclear Astrophysics and Cosmology, November 8-11, 2005, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, p. 77. 2. Russell Moon, Fabian Calvo, Victor Vasiliev. About of the Conservation of Lepton Number, Bulletin of the American Physical Society http://www.phys.ufl.edu/sesaps05.html72nd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Section of the APS November 10-12, 2005. Gainesville, Fla, USA, p. 8, BC.00008 3. R.G. Moon, V.V. Vasiliev. Explanation of the Conservation of Lepton Number, Book of abstracts 55 National Conference on Nuclear Physics, Frontiers in the Physics of Nucleus, June 28-July 1, 2005, St.-Petersburg, Russia, 2005, p. 347 On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16/11/2013 6:04 AM, David Roberson wrote: > > jwinter says: > > > > > *"That is correct. However for us to measure how fast our signal leaves > our ship, we need 2 clocks - Say one at the back of the ship where the > signal is launched from and one at the front of our ship to time how long > it takes to travel the length of the ship. The signal *only* leaves our > ship at the speed of light *if* we have taken care to re-synchronise our > clocks (using the so-called Einstein method) after reaching a steady > speed. If instead we kept the same synchronisation that we had before we > started to accelerate, then we would measure the same speed that any > previously stationary observer (remote or otherwise) measures (ie the light > pulse would travel *much* slower than c travelling from the back of our > ship towards the front, and *much* faster than c in the reverse direction! > (this is not well known and is a surprise even to many physicists). The > important thing here is that once we have reset our clocks to be > synchronous in our new high speed inertial frame, (or once we consider > ourselves to be at rest), then all distances with respect to our new > coordinate system have changed. In particular the 10 light year remote > star, has now instantly (with the synchronism or the consideration that we > are stationary) become only 1 light year away. That is why it will only > take us one light year to reach it. Distances in the reverse direction > (places behind us) are likewise increased (instead of decreased) simply by > the change of inertial reference frame. However if we consider ourselves > using our initial clock synchronisation, then we know our true accumulated > speed because we can see that the light pulse is only just travelling a bit > faster than us (it takes the pulse a very long time to travel from the back > of the ship to the front) and so we are travelling just a shade slower than > c. Also since any clock tick rate is given by an oscillation time, if we > use the round trip time of a light pulse travelling from the back of the > ship, to the front and back again, as our oscillation tick time, then we > know that our time is ticking a lot slower than it was before we > accelerated. If we divide the known distance (10 light years) by our speed > measured this way (~0.99c or thereabouts) then we know how many ticks of > our (slowed down) clock will happen in that distance - and it will be 1 > years worth. Since our clock seems to us to be ticking at its normal rate, > we will get there in what feels to us like a year."* > > Why would we need two clocks to measure the speed of light leaving our > ship? > > Quite simply because that is how we measure the speed of anything > (distance travelled / time taken). When it is relatively slow (like a 100 > meter dash) we can signal from end to end with light and only use a single > stopwatch. But if we want to measure the one-way speed of light itself, > then we need 2 clocks - one at each end, and read the time near where the > light pulse is launched, and read the time at the other end when the pulse > arrives. If we try to do it with one clock, then we can only measure the > round trip time. The round trip time of light is always constant because > that is how a clock ticks and is the definition of time itself. > > We were only subjected to a 10 G acceleration for the 1 year drive > period. Does the problem encountered accumulate throughout the entire time > that the acceleration is applied? For example, radiation emitted by our > drive engine at the very beginning of the trip would simply be measured by > all observers as having a velocity of c. Also, those on board the ship > plus every clock on board would determine everything was normal except for > the constant 10 G acceleration due to the drive. It is normally assumed > that the ship is rigidly constructed so that the front remains a constant > distance from the rear of the device. > > Pretty much correct - but since it is a one-way measurement that is > "measured by all observers", you have assumed that they all have the > equivalent of two separated clocks which they have synchronised by some > means - and usually by assuming that they are stationary. So observers > moving with respect to each other synchronise their clocks differently - > and that is how they can all read the same speed (when it is obviously not > the same if they all agreed on synchrony!). > > If the people on board ship (who are being accelerated) want to consider > themselves as being at rest, then they have a continually changing > synchrony. From the point of view of external unaccelerated observers they > are slowly acquiring a time-shear from the front of the ship to the back. > But the effect can also be measured by the people on board ship. Clocks > near the front tick slightly faster than clocks near the back. If they > transport one of clocks to be next to one that has long been separated from > it (so that their times can be compared directly without light signalling > between) then the one that has spent a while further forward will be found > to be fast in comparison to one which was located further back. > > The same effect happens in a gravitational field (since it is the same as > an acceleration) and has been measured on earth. If one clock is taken to > the top of the Eiffel tower (the front of the ship) then it runs slightly > faster than the one at ground level (the back of the ship). With a careful > measurement an observer at ground level could measure that "light" from the > clock at the top is slightly blue-shifted (because it has fallen through a > gravitational field and picked up energy) and vice-versa. An observer at > the back of the space ship could measure the same effect - when the "light" > from the clock at the front was emitted it had a particular frequency, but > as the back of the ship accelerates to encounter it, by the time it is > encountered it is blue shifted. > > This blue-shift / red-shift effect accumulates for the 1 year drive > period, so that at the end of it the clocks are significantly out of sync. > You can think of the time difference accumulation between the separated > clocks as simply accumulating your acceleration to provide a velocity > reading, which you could otherwise do electronically. When the clock > separation divided by the time difference accumulation is equal to the > speed of light, at that point (if your time had not slowed down) you would > be breaking through the speed of light barrier! > > ...Is there any special reason that we would synchronize our clocks by > taking into account our original velocity? > > If we had two clocks, and synchronised them at the start of the trip > (before we started to accelerate), then whatever process you choose to do > it by assumes our original velocity to be zero. It doesn't matter if we > keep the clocks separated and signal between them through wires or with > light, or if we put them together to synchronise them and separate them > afterwards. All presently available methods take into account our original > velocity and assume that it is zero. If we signal between them with light, > and if we are "really" moving with respect to an absolute reference frame > then our signals are delayed differently in different directions and we > have synchronised them with a built-in time-shear. If we synchronise them > when the are next to each other and then separate them, then during the > motion of separation one clock travels faster w.r.t the "really" moving > absolute reference frame and so ticks slower for the period that the > separation motion occurs and acquires a time-shear offset from the other. > It turns out (as it always does!) that these methods have the identical > effect and if we are "really" moving during clock synchronisation, we > cannot avoid synchronising them with a time-shear that matches our initial > velocity. > > Since that could have been any velocity, it is not clear why it is > important. Suppose we happened to be going at a velocity of c/2 relative > to some observer. No one can determine that he or we are at any particular > velocity. Was that not one of the rules guiding SR and GR? > > It doesn't matter what velocity it is. By synchronising your clocks you > have simply calibrated your present speed to read zero. Comparing the > ongoing synchronisation of separated clocks then simply indicates to what > velocity, and in which direction you have accelerated with respect to that > initial reference frame. > > > If we adjust our calculations in such a manner as to take into account > what other at rest observers determine, then we leave the local frame which > I am attempting to analyze. Let's remain on board the ship until we can > milk as much knowledge as possible from this location. We should assume > that we have reached a static constant velocity state once the acceleration > period has ended. Then we look at the world from that point of view to > determine our fate. We are aware of the distance measurement conducted > before our acceleration that the star was 10 light years distant. This > information is important and allows us to calculate the time it should take > to cover it at our assumed velocity. Any distance contraction can now be > measured by sending a radar probe toward the star. The reflected beam > yields both velocity as shown in the Doppler shifted signal as well as > distance calculated by the time delayed return. At this point the ship is > essentially stationary in space and the observer and star are heading > towards us. > > Do you see a way that this paradox can be resolved without prior > knowledge of absolute velocities? > > I don't actually see a paradox. Unless different observers agree on a > what reference frame to use, then they cannot even agree on the order in > which two events separated in distance happened in time. This is because > the time-shear effect that occurs during synchronisation of slightly > separated clocks, when extended to great distances produces very different > "now"s. Observers on earth will consider that "now" on the 10 light year > distant star is ~9 years different from the "now" that observers on the > space ship contemplate. After all they will be there in 1 year and so only > a years worth of history will pass while they are travelling. But to > earthbound observers 10 years worth of history will pass while the ship > makes the journey. > > Supposing that according to observers on earth who are in (very slow) > communication with the remote world (which shares the same reference > frame), a nuclear holocaust occurs 5 years after the ship departs on its > journey. According to the travellers who have just started their trip and > just reached top speed, when they arrive they will find that it happened 5 > years ago. So in their time-sheared frame of reference at the start of the > trip the holocaust had already occurred 4 years ago before they left > earth! So the travellers in their travelling reference frame say that the > holocaust preceded their departure by 4 years, whereas the earthbound > observers say that the departure preceded the holocaust by 5 years. Can > they both be right? According to Einstein's relativity they are both as > right as each other because there is no preferred reference frame. > > Here is an interesting question. Supposing one of the travellers had a > dearly beloved relative on the distant planet who dies in the holocaust. > And supposing, as is so often reported as happening on earth, appears in > the traveller's bedroom momentarily after death. At what point before or > during the trip should the apparition occur? If you want that this > occurrence should be almost "immediate" regardless of distance then you > need to have a preferred universal reference frame - such as the CMBR. > Then all can agree on simultaneity, and instantaneous mental telepathy and > suchlike over large distances become non-problematic. > >
