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 <berry.joh...@gmail.com> 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 <berry.joh...@gmail.com>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 <hveeder...@gmail.com> 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 <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The "linear example" you describe below. >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>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 <hveeder...@gmail.com>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 >>>>>> <berry.joh...@gmail.com>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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >
