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 <berry.joh...@gmail.com> 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.. > > <snip>
