Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Waves And Relative Velocity

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#18 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2579 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 01:42 AM

What we need is Doublesox back to argue on this thread. Then we can all enjoy some real Asperger's-on-Asperger's action. eating-popcorn-smiley-emoticon-1.gif


  • Flummoxed likes this

#19 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 03:52 AM

Not on this thread you haven't, but the above is approximately where I was going to go, see previous reference to galaxies doing 3 c in the outer edges of the visible  universe, and light in those still measured at c in those universes, like what it is in a train.

 

I will shut up as I clearly haven't got a clue what you want to discuss. 

 

Well, objects cannot exceed the speed of light within their own reference frame, the galaxies at the outer edge of the universe cannot be moving at 3 c , I am not going to explain why but something to do with a infinite amount of energy required to accelerate it and several other reasons. This must be a error in the measurement of their velocity or the object would not be visible, my point being that that is a impossibility, basically for the reasons that you know why as someone that has studied physics. Do you understand the crankness of saying they exceed the speed of light and why?


Edited by VictorMedvil, 24 May 2019 - 03:55 AM.


#20 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 102 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 06:48 AM

Well, objects cannot exceed the speed of light within their own reference frame, the galaxies at the outer edge of the universe cannot be moving at 3 c , I am not going to explain why but something to do with a infinite amount of energy required to accelerate it and several other reasons. This must be a error in the measurement of their velocity or the object would not be visible, my point being that that is a impossibility, basically for the reasons that you know why as someone that has studied physics. Do you understand the crankness of saying they exceed the speed of light and why?

 

Galaxies can and do move faster than  the speed of light relative to us, because of the expansion of the universe. This does not violate special relativity, which applies to movement through local frames and not to the global expansion of the universe.


Edited by Amplituhedron, 24 May 2019 - 06:49 AM.


#21 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 07:07 AM

Sometimes I discuss relativity with my dog and if I can maintain his attention until the end of my explanation I then know it has a chance of being understood on a physics forum. My dog is not insulted by this comparison because he doesn't care how smart he looks or not. But he does come up with some good pointers. For example, if I mention the word "squirrel" during the explanation he will rush to the windows (pun) looking for squirrel which is analogous to what people here do with wiki. Except in this case I mentioned "Doppler shift"  and that's suddenly what this thread became about. If I let my dog's mind wander, he too will wonder about the effects of space expansion at the edge of the universe and how that affects c just like in the train example. So I'm only going to talk about flying dog treats.A photon is a flying dog treat. Never mind that a photon is the stationary positional form of light and that a wave is the moving form that smears a photon over a large area so that we can see an analogue sky at night and not worry that there are enough photons hitting our eye so we don't see a digital grainy picture. Woof, I've lost my dog again, back to flying dog treats.

 

Two dogs are sitting at the back and front of a train. The train is sealed so the existence of a medium is irrelevant and the red dog treats are flung at the maximum possible speed known to dog. Whether the train moves or not, the dog treats will hit both dogs simultaneously when launched from the middle of the train. Now the train moves through a platform where blue dog treats are flung from the middle of the platform matching the place and time when the red dog treats are flung inside the train. Oh no I used the wrong colors for the dog treats because now people will start talking about red and blue doppler squirrel again. 

 

Anyway, the dogs have side portals to receive the blue dog treats. Now the medium outside the train comes into play because the train is moving relative to that medium. The speed of dog treat is the same inside and outside the train but the blue dog treat has less distance to cover because the train back is moving towards it. The front dog should get the red treat first and the blue second because the train is moving farther way from the blue treat launch point. Now being dogs, they see no paradox of simultaneity between the simultaneity of the red treats inside the train and the non-simultaneity of the blue treats outside the train because there is none. This is not the relativity of simultaneity, you don't need length contraction or time dilation just plain old newton to explain this. Unfortunately, parrots are not as smart as dogs so if they're told this is a relativistic miracle, they will believe and repeat that it is because they're bird brains.

 

So the dog in the back should get the blue treat before it gets the red treat. But the MMX proved the back dog gets both the blue and red treats simultaneously from his and the platform's perspective. Same is true for the front dog. The miracle of simultaneity is not that there's a difference in simultaneity between the front and back but that there's no difference in simultaneity between red and blue. It's like the train has no relative velocity to the outside medium, like there is no outside medium. How do red and blue, both travelling at the max universal speed, cover different distances yet meet up at the same time? Does the train need to shrink from the platform perspective or does the motion of the train affect the passage of time within the train from the platform perspective. Or, as Al's theory says, both come into play to maintain c from all perspectives. 

 

If the platform perspective knows time is dilated within the train, that's how light can appear to cover different distances in the same time from the platform's and train's perspectives because it isn't the same time. The red and blue treat speeds also look the same from any perspective maintaining the constancy of c without having to resort to length contraction. No? Still don't get it? Anybody?

 

PS. The MMX conclusion that since there is no relative velocity to the outside medium does not necessarily follow that there is no outside medium. In fact just using the assumption that there is a max universal speed and time dilation from an outside perspective makes the debate of whether there is or is not a medium a moot point. Those assumptions alone would prevent any velocity the medium may move at to not affect c. Wow, and you guys blindly believe in what Al has to say?


Edited by ralfcis, 24 May 2019 - 10:40 AM.


#22 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 07:49 AM

Hmm I just answered your questions without reading them. See the PS. It doesn't matter what my dog believes, it only matters that I can hold its attention. I can explain things to him but I can't understand things for him and stick that in his brain. What's your point?


Edited by ralfcis, 24 May 2019 - 07:56 AM.


#23 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 08:56 AM

I was outside gardening and came up with another argument. Let's use red and blue  neutrinos instead of dog treats. There would be no measurable difference between neutrino speed through water or vacuum. The red neutrino inside the train would travel beside the blue neutrino outside the train whatever the outside medium (water). So if the red neutrino and blue neutrino would have to hit the back of the train simultaneously from any perspective. This is regardless of whether a medium exists or not. But the red neutrino has travelled a longer distance at the same speed. But the time it has travelled that longer distance inside the train is not the same time as the blue counterpart has travelled outside the train. Whether a medium exists or not is irrelevant to how relativity explains the MMX result so long as the relative velocity to the medium has no effect on the speed of the light or neutrino.



#24 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 02:09 PM

Well flum, you've made it to my ignore list. That's a special vintage stored in the cellar for those who have no present value and will probably never mature to having any future value.


Edited by ralfcis, 24 May 2019 - 02:09 PM.


#25 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 102 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 03:21 PM

Ralf, have you considered asking your dog to teach you relativity theory?


  • Flummoxed likes this

#26 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 05:21 PM

Galaxies can and do move faster than  the speed of light relative to us, because of the expansion of the universe. This does not violate special relativity, which applies to movement through local frames and not to the global expansion of the universe.

The Rate at which the universe expands is constant being the Hubble Constant so you are saying that the Hubble constant is different for distant objects than closer objects which leads me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about as it is constant for the entire universe the expansion. From all frames of reference it is expanding at the amount the Hubble constant dictates, it doesn't matter how far away you are from the object that is being pushed away due to Dark Energy, still it expands at the amount of the Hubble constant in the visible universe you cannot exceed the speed of light as you would never have the light reach you from the object if space was expanding faster than the speed of light as the light would get stuck against this expansion that is greater than the speed of light never able to reach you, then there is the amount of energy required to move a object like a galaxy to the speed of light which would be infinite, it doesn't matter what reference frame you are in as mass goes to infinite as the speed of light approaches, so you are also saying that there is a infinite amount of dark energy in the universe that is moving this galaxy's mass or some how satisfies the Alcubierreian metric. There are other problems with this being that the atoms and particles creating matter would be torn apart by the stress of expansion upon them if there was a expansion greater than the speed of light within the object causing spontaneous fission of the atoms. This is several of the many reasons that is impossible. The Maximum speed that any object could theoretically move would be C + H and that would only be light particle that could move at that rate otherwise it would disturb the balance of the entire universe and probably cause anomalies in the universe such as the spontaneous fission of atoms to say that something as large as a galaxy is moving faster than the speed of light is ludicrous.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 24 May 2019 - 05:50 PM.


#27 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2586 posts

Posted 24 May 2019 - 11:07 PM

Wrong, that is not relative velocity that is a scalar speed. Adding c+c using the relative velocity combo equation results in c. You're talking about closing speed. Just ask Popeye, he went over this with me in my relativity and algebra thread #369657.

That's only supposed to be used when you choose one of the interactions itself as the reference frame though. Since the nearby massive body would be earth itself, and or the lab in question that's the frame. If you play frame-shifting games like that you're needlessly complicating things. The reason things will show up as "less than C" in that kinda equation is the same reason that any information sent out would be blue-shifted relative to the other particle...

#28 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 25 May 2019 - 05:34 AM

The frames compared are from each photon's reciprocal perspective for relative velocity. Let's use the analogy of two cars on opposite sides of the road both approaching each other at c. Using relativity's velocity combo equation, each sees the other coming at them at c but from the road's perspective, which is not in line with their motion but perpendicular to it, it sees their scalar closing speed at 2c which is not a vector or relative velocity. If it were, then the velocity combo law would be a fake.

 

Also the blue shifting is a sign that c is not surpassed because in the doppler effect, relative velocity is manifested instead as increased frequency.

 

PS. Your example is the same thing as a laser pointer from earth flicked across the surface of the moon. You're perpendicular to the motion of the dot on the moon which could go many times c from your perspective but it's not velocity relative to you. It doesn't move much closer or farther away from you during its journey across the moon's surface.

 

PPS. Also as long as I'm here, you stated light does not propagate spherically in another thread but it does. The wave function is a large area smear of the photon's position and the wave function collapse at a dome detector would show only a few photon points. I think you're expecting the entire dome detector around the sphere would be black with photon landings if light propagated spherically. but that's not the wave particle duality relationship. Actually, I have no idea how many photons are being smeared inside any particular light wave (my suspicion is each wavelength is a photon since the relationship must be digital, not analogue). The idea that photons propagate like bullets is false. The wave is the form of propagation and the photon is the form of position so photons are always stationary despite popular misunderstanding. You'll have no problem showering me with wiki articles "proving" my interpretation is wrong but I'm just going with the current version of quantum physics' wave/particle duality.


Edited by ralfcis, 25 May 2019 - 06:01 AM.


#29 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 102 posts

Posted 25 May 2019 - 06:26 AM

The Rate at which the universe expands is constant being the Hubble Constant so you are saying that the Hubble constant is different for distant objects than closer objects which leads me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about...

 

You could have just used Google, you know.



#30 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2586 posts

Posted 25 May 2019 - 02:47 PM

PS. Your example is the same thing as a laser pointer from earth flicked across the surface of the moon. You're perpendicular to the motion of the dot on the moon which could go many times c from your perspective but it's not velocity relative to you. It doesn't move much closer or farther away from you during its journey across the moon's surface.

... totally different scenarios.

  1. CERN: 2+ massive particles accelerated to .999C relative to refrence (earth/lab/detector/rings) traveling in opposite directions at said speed.
  2. LASER flick: Photons (massless) paricles moving from Earth surface towards the moon in a sliding spray pattern.
     

As for you bit on light...no that's not how it works. LUL. Read up on virtual particle interaction/capture to learn how light REALLY works. We've got tests for it only developed in the past few years but it's been in the talks for quite  while... :)



#31 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 25 May 2019 - 04:32 PM

Ok I'll backoff and let someone else weigh in.



#32 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 25 May 2019 - 06:25 PM

Ok I've thought about it and two particles going at .9997c relative to the LHC will collide at  resultant relative velocity to each other at .99999995c not 1.9994c. If you disagree, we won't be reaching an agreement.

The other thing about virtual particles I'd have to study up on at some point in the distant future.

 

PS. If you've been following the relativity and algebra thread, I've shown that everything travels at c and the higher its observed speed through space, the slower its observed speed through time. Light itself travels at c through space without affecting c through time so, in a sense, light travels at 2c whereas everything else can only travel at c.


Edited by ralfcis, 25 May 2019 - 08:39 PM.


#33 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 05:57 AM

I watched a couple of videos last night from Don Lincoln. If you're talking about quantum foam as being responsible for the propagation of light and maxwell's ideas no longer apply then I don't see how that explains light doesn't propagate spherically. What's the evidence it doesn't?

 

I also saw one on universe expansion, how the farther we are from something, the faster it goes so beyond our visible radius. Space is expanding many times c but because it's space that's expanding, it doesn't mean relativity is compromised. That and the quantum foam video suggests huge amounts of energy are being created in the expansion. Since I call BS on length contraction, I'm also going to call BS on space expansion. What if time dilation increases due to distance. This would mean velocity lines curve which makes us think there's an accelerated space expansion when it's really only time. If it's only time, nothing is being created in the virtual expansion. Our visible sphere is therefore nothing but an event horizon where all the velocity lines converge and time stops. The universe is basically an oreo cookie between an expanding event horizon when time was stopped at the beginning and time is still stopped at the furthest reaches. See anyone can make up a plausible theory based on incomplete information  and write wiki articles about it. Scientists seem to explain everything they don't know with other things they don't know and call that science. I'm not interested in how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.



#34 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 27 May 2019 - 02:04 AM

Ok I've thought about it and two particles going at .9997c relative to the LHC will collide at  resultant relative velocity to each other at .99999995c not 1.9994c. If you disagree, we won't be reaching an agreement.

The other thing about virtual particles I'd have to study up on at some point in the distant future.

 

PS. If you've been following the relativity and algebra thread, I've shown that everything travels at c and the higher its observed speed through space, the slower its observed speed through time. Light itself travels at c through space without affecting c through time so, in a sense, light travels at 2c whereas everything else can only travel at c.

 

That is where the Higgs Mechanism comes into play if two objects begin to Tachyon Condensate upon collision, they will generate mass from their Energy/Velocity to remove the energy moving it above the speed of light, that is why during particle collision many massive particles are generated to account for the lost Energy/Velocity from the collision at 1.9994C(https://en.wikipedia...on_condensation,https://en.wikipedia...Higgs_mechanism).

 

That is partially why this happens at CERN

49-EE0248-2-D7-E-41-BC-8-D88-E35-FA7-D92

 

Look at the spray of massive particles from a proton and proton collision both at near C or a closing velocity of C + C or 2C.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 27 May 2019 - 02:20 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity