Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?

Light speed relativity

  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#69 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 02:35 PM

Ok Sluggo I know you're probably hiding under the covers hoping I don't challenge you again so I'll give you a hint. If you had a muon gun instead of an electron gun, how would my experiment differ? Electrons have no half-life. Muon's have that as a built in clock. If we shot an electron out of a gun, the only clock we'd have access to is the same one that pulses electrons out of the emitter. That external clock would have to be used at the detector so there would be no detectable time dilation or length contraction at the detector wrt the emitter because no clock is moving. But if it was a muon gun, they do have their own clocks and the faster you shoot them, the longer they stay alive to cross longer and longer distances. Does this mean td and lc are working in tandem? No. It means the muon's speed v' = Yv = x/t' works in tandem with time dilation (t'=2.2 usec) to cover more distance as Y goes up. 



#70 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 02:35 PM

Yup I'm sure you can call up any number of wiki articles supporting your contention that rods actually contract for the reasons you gave but why don't they shrink in 3D? I mean the electrons orbit in 3D and time dilation would affect all 3 dimensions but length contraction only happens in 1 dimension. Did you ever consider trying critical thinking out for a test drive?

 

ralfcis, as I wrote before, this thing with STR started with Lorentz. His study of length contraction was only in

one dimension (the x axis). He didn't apply his transforms to the other axis. Maybe it was too challenging

mathematically.

 

I'm posting an excerpt of the original work of 1904 Lorentz's relativity (as published). He got t' wrong and

his friend, Henri Poincarè gave it the modern form and named the entire group as Lorentz Transforms.

 

Einstein based his work on this one, the one from Poincarè and the old one from Voigt (1897). But he kept

using only one dimensional transforms as Lorentz and Poincarè did, probably because the three of them

read Voigt's work and watched him fail when tried to apply a 3D transform. Voigt obtained transforms at y

and z axis (multiplied by Gamma) but x kept being galilean. Voigt invented local time: t-xv/c2.

 

 

 

Lorentz%2B1904.jpg



#71 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 03:04 PM

There is no specific physics of lc outside of td so the math is irrelevant as well. 



#72 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 03:47 PM

I'm thinking more about the example between a muon gun and an electron gun and the thought experiment suggests that if you're sending out anything like an electron or photon or proton that doesn't age, the default approaches Y=1 and t=t' so there is no time dilation for these things. This indicates that Einstein was wrong that Y = infinity for light and that photons cross infinite distance (or until they hit something) in zero time. No way to test this conjecture for light but it is possible to check it for electrons. At any speed you send them Y must equal 1 and this could be tested that the detector registers the same spacing between electrons as the emitter sends out. One more falsification of Einstein's relativity. So sad that little one-eyed slimeball Farquad finds this a waste of life, I do indeed live for it.

 

PS. Oops I'm wrong, there is a way to test this for light and its already been done. Raskar photos of light pulses indicate they are the same length as that sent out by the pulse emitter. They do not shrink to zero.


Edited by ralfcis, 11 June 2019 - 03:53 PM.


#73 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 12 June 2019 - 01:12 AM

It's not like I became mean over the years, I was mean from my very first post in 2006. I asked a question, SolarEagle posted an irrelevant wiki article in response, I asked wtf is this, the entire forum came down on me for being ungrateful. I told them all to FO as I'm not looking for any answer to any question, I'm looking for a specific answer to my specific question and I'm not interested in some guy trying to show how smart he is at googling answers off wiki. He wasn't helping, he was wasting my time and I didn't want any more answers from him. My pappy always told me to treat everyone you meet with disrespect , make them earn it. Not really true, they never do nor do you ever get rid of them, they continue as a drag on your time forever.

 

So just as my flame war with everyone took over like wildfire, I met Jorrie, the resident expert on relativity who wrote a book on it. He coached me for over 10 years until I found his non-answers no longer satisfactory and began on my own path to the theory of ralfativity. Words will not guide you, you have to learn the algebra.

No, I tend to question all that I don't understand, but I hope to be
convinced of the truth. I don't mind if people who want to help copy
and paste something as long as it goes to the question. You are right
that I need to work on my algebra if I want to go further with
relativity - but I have certainly learned a lot more than I knew a
month ago.
Apart from relativity, do you think there are weak areas in physics?
Could it be that there are very widely accepted models in physics that
could yet be proven wrong? I've heard that there are some physicists
that question even the Bohr model!! If an idea is taught in schools
for generations then could it be too entrenched to be debunked?



#74 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2712 posts

Posted 12 June 2019 - 02:17 AM

No, I tend to question all that I don't understand, but I hope to be
convinced of the truth. I don't mind if people who want to help copy
and paste something as long as it goes to the question. You are right
that I need to work on my algebra if I want to go further with
relativity - but I have certainly learned a lot more than I knew a
month ago.
Apart from relativity, do you think there are weak areas in physics?
Could it be that there are very widely accepted models in physics that
could yet be proven wrong? I've heard that there are some physicists
that question even the Bohr model!! If an idea is taught in schools
for generations then could it be too entrenched to be debunked?

The 1913 Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom was abandoned by about 1930!

 

It was obvious even to them that there were huge problems with it, when they developed it. So it was really not much more than a placeholder, while further work was done. (The basic problem is that a circulating electron in a classical orbit should radiate energy, making the electron lose energy and spiral into the nucleus, so the atom would collapse. Obviously that does not happen, so something stops it radiating, evidently.  It was quantum theory which solved that problem, when it was developed during the 1920s.)

 

The Bohr model gets taught in schools at elementary level as a simplistic way to get some of the concepts of atomic structure across. However it should always be taught with the proviso that it is an oversimplification.

 

If you study chemistry or physics in the 6th form, you quickly learn what is wrong with it and how you should really think of the structure of the atom. 


Edited by exchemist, 12 June 2019 - 02:19 AM.

  • Mattzy likes this

#75 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 02:13 AM

Mattzy

#31;
 

[Clock rate is proportional to 1/gamma, = 1/sqrt(1-a^2), with a = v/c.]


#50;
 

[The clock rate is a function of relative speed v/c, with c=1. Human perception of time is literally what they think it is. Another manifestation of time dilation is length contraction. If all em processes slow at high speeds, so do the interactions of electrons and similar basic particles. This allows closer spacing during acceleration. There are no rigid rods. You can heat a metal rod in the privacy of your home, and measure the difference.

Timelines are histories of positions.

 

All of that makes sense to me. It suggests that time is not scientific at all, but just history. Histories of positions (timelines) are just human records. It also means that I have no perception of time at all!



#76 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 02:19 AM

It's not like I became mean over the years, I was mean from my very first post in 2006. I asked a question, SolarEagle posted an irrelevant wiki article in response, I asked wtf is this, the entire forum came down on me for being ungrateful. I told them all to FO as I'm not looking for any answer to any question, I'm looking for a specific answer to my specific question and I'm not interested in some guy trying to show how smart he is at googling answers off wiki. He wasn't helping, he was wasting my time and I didn't want any more answers from him. My pappy always told me to treat everyone you meet with disrespect , make them earn it. Not really true, they never do nor do you ever get rid of them, they continue as a drag on your time forever.

 

So just as my flame war with everyone took over like wildfire, I met Jorrie, the resident expert on relativity who wrote a book on it. He coached me for over 10 years until I found his non-answers no longer satisfactory and began on my own path to the theory of ralfativity. Words will not guide you, you have to learn the algebra.

ralfcis, I'll try to make this my last question on this. Will algebra give me an understanding of what time is? It seems that without that solid understanding, then relativity can't be understood.



#77 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 07:51 AM

ralfcis, I'll try to make this my last question on this. Will algebra give me an understanding of what time is? It seems that without that solid understanding, then relativity can't be understood.

 

No, you don’t need algebra to understand time, for heaven sake! Nor do you need any math at all. You just need to grasp the conceptual basis of relativity and why it affects space and time, and the math follows. The math does not prescribe relativity, it describes it.

 

Galilean relativity shows that a frame in constant uniform motion (known as an inertial frame) is indistinguishable from a frame at rest. This means you cannot perform any experiment to prove you are in motion. Try it yourself: on a moving conveyance traveling in constant uniform motion, if you bounce a ball it comes right back up to your hand, just as if you were at rest, right?

 

Of course if the conveyance slows or accelerates or suddenly stops, or changes its motion in any way, then you know your are moving. You’re no longer in an inertial frame, but in an accelerated one.

 

The thing about light is this: It does not obey Galileo’s addition of velocities calculation. It is measured to travel the same speed, c, in all frames in relative motion.

 

Are you familiar with a light clock? The linked article explains, in a nutshell, both time dilation and length contraction, and why you must have both precisely because the speed of light is invariant regardless of relative motion.  The author of the article is an expert in the field. If you want to learn about this stuff, please do not listen to ralfcis or marcospolo or other cranks that seem to haunt this place. They have no idea what they are talking about.


  • Mattzy likes this

#78 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2963 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 07:56 AM

 

 

 

Galilean relativity shows that a frame in constant uniform motion (known as an inertial frame) is indistinguishable from a frame at rest.

 

I'll appease this ONE time and if you don't follow I won't be bothering again. Now, why do you think this statement is true? I am not saying it is wrong, I want to see if you can follow one step at a time.



#79 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 08:21 AM

I'll appease this ONE time and if you don't follow I won't be bothering again. Now, why do you think this statement is true? I am not saying it is wrong, I want to see if you can follow one step at a time.

 

It is because there is no state of absolute rest. If there were, you could conduct an experiment in an inertial frame to prove that you were in motion relative to that absolute rest frame. This cannot be done. Before Einstein's light postulate, it was thought  that you could distinguish motion from rest with the use of light. If you measured the same speed of light going in different directions, you'd be at absolute rest. If you measured light to be slower or faster depending on direction, you'd be in absolute motion relative to the mythical ether. This is not how things are.



#80 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2963 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 09:47 AM

It is because there is no state of absolute rest. If there were, you could conduct an experiment in an inertial frame to prove that you were in motion relative to that absolute rest frame. This cannot be done. Before Einstein's light postulate, it was thought  that you could distinguish motion from rest with the use of light. If you measured the same speed of light going in different directions, you'd be at absolute rest. If you measured light to be slower or faster depending on direction, you'd be in absolute motion relative to the mythical ether. This is not how things are.

 

Right... all things are in motion, there is no absolute rest - everything is relative. It has a deeper meaning though, it means that it doesn't depend on the frame of reference, you can argue relativity in both ways, for instance, a moving observer can argue the one at rest is moving and the one at rest argues the ship is moving. If a light beam was traveling vertically from one detector to another inside the ship, the observers inside the craft will always view the the light beam traveling in a straight line... but the observer at rest notices that the light beam is actually traveling in a zig zag path in space, indicating that the moving ship has a length contraction in both space and time. This indicates that the clock at rest is ticking faster than the one in motion.

 

Understand this so far?


Edited by Dubbelosix, 13 June 2019 - 09:49 AM.


#81 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 11:57 AM

Right... all things are in motion, there is no absolute rest - everything is relative. It has a deeper meaning though, it means that it doesn't depend on the frame of reference, you can argue relativity in both ways, for instance, a moving observer can argue the one at rest is moving and the one at rest argues the ship is moving. If a light beam was traveling vertically from one detector to another inside the ship, the observers inside the craft will always view the the light beam traveling in a straight line... but the observer at rest notices that the light beam is actually traveling in a zig zag path in space, indicating that the moving ship has a length contraction in both space and time. This indicates that the clock at rest is ticking faster than the one in motion.

 

Understand this so far?

 

Do I understand it? I've already explained this very thing to Marcospolo! And also why the symmetry between the observations is broken because of frame switching.


  • exchemist likes this

#82 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2963 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 12:03 PM

Do I understand it? I've already explained this very thing to Marcospolo! And also why the symmetry between the observations is broken because of frame switching.

 

Yes, there is a symmetry, but here's going to be a new puzzle for you, is the lengths of a Pythagorean triangle always the sum of the other three?



#83 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 12:49 AM

 

No, you don’t need algebra to understand time, for heaven sake! Nor do you need any math at all. You just need to grasp the conceptual basis of relativity and why it affects space and time, and the math follows. The math does not prescribe relativity, it describes it.

 

Galilean relativity shows that a frame in constant uniform motion (known as an inertial frame) is indistinguishable from a frame at rest. This means you cannot perform any experiment to prove you are in motion. Try it yourself: on a moving conveyance traveling in constant uniform motion, if you bounce a ball it comes right back up to your hand, just as if you were at rest, right?

 

Of course if the conveyance slows or accelerates or suddenly stops, or changes its motion in any way, then you know your are moving. You’re no longer in an inertial frame, but in an accelerated one.

 

The thing about light is this: It does not obey Galileo’s addition of velocities calculation. It is measured to travel the same speed, c, in all frames in relative motion.

 

Are you familiar with a light clock? The linked article explains, in a nutshell, both time dilation and length contraction, and why you must have both precisely because the speed of light is invariant regardless of relative motion.  The author of the article is an expert in the field. If you want to learn about this stuff, please do not listen to ralfcis or marcospolo or other cranks that seem to haunt this place. They have no idea what they are talking about.

 

I'll have a look at the link. I live in eternal hope. I was being quite serious about the subject of time. I understand the difficulties, but as yet, not the explanations.

I can perceive existence and change, but not any concept of anything but man made recording of history. That is why I think ralfcis is probably right about having to understand albebra. I wonder if Einstein really did explain relativity to a barmaid! (As he suggested) I doubt it. I'll try your link. Thanks.



#84 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 07:37 AM

I'll have a look at the link. I live in eternal hope. I was being quite serious about the subject of time. I understand the difficulties, but as yet, not the explanations.

I can perceive existence and change, but not any concept of anything but man made recording of history. That is why I think ralfcis is probably right about having to understand albebra. I wonder if Einstein really did explain relativity to a barmaid! (As he suggested) I doubt it. I'll try your link. Thanks.

 

Ralfcis is wrong. You do not need algebra to understand time! Nor even to understand relativity theory (which obviously involves time, but is not the same thing AS time).

 

You don't need any math at all to understand it! But, if you want some numbers, all you need is elementary geometry and very simple arithmetic -- as is demonstrated at the link I gave you.

 

If you sincerely are a beginner trying to learn about relativity, why are you talking to cranks like ralfics? It's the worst thing you can do. You can take a class, read an elementary text, or take advantage of the massive amount of info on relativity that can be found on the internet. 


Edited by Amplituhedron, 14 June 2019 - 12:41 PM.


#85 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2712 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:06 AM

I'll have a look at the link. I live in eternal hope. I was being quite serious about the subject of time. I understand the difficulties, but as yet, not the explanations.

I can perceive existence and change, but not any concept of anything but man made recording of history. That is why I think ralfcis is probably right about having to understand albebra. I wonder if Einstein really did explain relativity to a barmaid! (As he suggested) I doubt it. I'll try your link. Thanks.

He didn't.

 

The quote about science (or physics) and a barmaid (or bartender) is generally attributed to Rutherford: https://en.wikiquote...nest_Rutherford, a rather cocky New Zealander. It certainly was never applied to relativity. 

 

The internet is full of quotations erroneously attributed to Einstein. 


  • Mattzy likes this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Light speed, relativity