Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[Sherwood]

LOL. NO. Not spherical. Try again?

   Maybe I should have said, "An omnidirectional light pulse leaves its source at speed c."  In which case in the reference frame in which the source is not moving I would consider a sphere the appropriate description, since at any time the distance of the light from the source would be I=ct which would also equal the radius of a sphere of radius r=I=ct.  The post is about the portion of the light, a disc actually, traveling perpendicular the the direction of motion of the object.  Any object will be moving perpendicular to some 'disc' of light from an omnidirectional light pulse.

[GAHD]

   Maybe I should have said, "An omnidirectional light pulse leaves its source at speed c."  In which case in the reference frame in which the source is not moving I would consider a sphere the appropriate description, since at any time the distance of the light from the source would be I=ct which would also equal the radius of a sphere of radius r=I=ct.  The post is about the portion of the light, a disc actually, traveling perpendicular the the direction of motion of the object.  Any object will be moving perpendicular to some 'disc' of light from an omnidirectional light pulse.

That's not how light works. Edit: I'm going to point you to a few keywords that will probably fix some serious misunderstandings . "Interferometer" "Bell's Theorem"

 

Many on this thread keep thinking that the speed of light is a constant and the arguments based on this assumption are sound physics. I hate to break the news, but scientist have long ago figured out a way to slow light down, and I am talking about slowing it down to not just a crawl, but stopping photons in mid-flight altogether.

Side note: Light is not "stopped" it's "contained" in the experiments you're talking about. IIRC one of them works off of induced refraction essentially turning the media into a mirror/lens, and the other one "absorbs" the photons into electrons which can then be dropped back to their ground state following normal (Stimulated Emission of Radiation) rules observable in any LASER system. It's cool, but it's NOT actually changing the speeds involved of any photons, it's just altering trajectory and re-emission times.

Edited May 11, 2019 by GAHD
feeling kind

[Sherwood]

- I don't believe that space-time is a physical entity. It's OK for Minkowski, a mathematician, to believe on it in the mathematical world.

  But space and time have no material properties and can't be subjected to effects of physical actions.

  They are mathematical definitions!!

 

    You might find this interesting.  Minkowski's spacetime, often written s, is related mathematically to the Special Relativity (SR) Interval equation (I) as follows:

                               I² = –s²

 where the distances in s are expressed in 3 dimensions but can be expressed in one dimension by rotation of coordinates and 

                               I² = (ct)² – x² = (ct')² – x'²​ = (ct'')² – x''²​ = (ct''')² – x'''²​ = …

Considering various objects (and their reference frames) moving in one direction at various speeds with respect to the light source, I is the distance the light has traveled perpendicularly to this direction from its source for time t presumably at speed c.  It is the same distance for all of these reference frames.  In the source frame, the source is not moving so the perpendicular light ray(s) do not change their x position.  Therefore, x equals 0 in that frame and I is simply this perpendicular distance the light has moved during 'proper time' which is the same as Newtonian time.

    In SR, the transform equations show that SR 'time' is a function of Newtonian time, velocity, and location.  The SR quantity that is the same as Newtonian time is (I/c).  I hope this helps.  My other posts may help.  The discussion in post #96 is more complete, although the format of the posting leaves a lot to be desired.

[rhertz]

This is one of the solutions, post 1905_Einstein.

Spoiler: It's dirty and fallacious, but it's widely used.

 

This derivation can be watched here:

 

 

 

1) Assume that there are two reference frames, S and S', at which distance and time are (x,t) and (x',t') respectively. S' moves away from S

    at a constant velocity v.

 

2) S and S' motions are under only one axis, which contains x and x' positions (the other cartesian axis always verify positions y=y' and z=z').

 

    Assume that (x,t,v) and (x',t',v) verify a transformation:

 

    x' = K (x - vt)            , and that, for linear simmetry:

    x  = K( x' + vt')

 

being K a factor to be found.

 

Replacing x' into x equation, it gives:

 

   x/K = Kx - Kvt + vt'

 

   vt' = x/K - Kx + Kvt

 

Dividing by v, it gives

 

   t' = x/(vK) - Kx/v + Kt = Kt - Kx/v (1 - 1/K²)

 

3) Also, synchronizing frames clocks at t=t'=0 with a flash of spherical shape, it is verified afterwards that:

 

   x = ct and x' = ct'  (second postulate of STR)

 

then for x',

 

  ct' = K (ct - vt) = Kt (c-v)

 

and, for x,

 

  ct = K (ct'+vt') = Kt' (c+v)

 

multiplying both sides of the last two equations, it gives

 

 c² tt' = K² tt' (c²-v²) 

 

or

 

 K² = c²/(c²-v²)

 

or

 

 K = (1 - v²/c²)^-1/2  , which is the Lorentz Gamma Factor.

 

4) replacing K value in the former formula

 

   t' = Kt - Kx/v (1 - 1/K²)

 

it gives

 

  t' = Kt - Kxv/c² = K (t - xv/c²) = t - xv.c^-2/(1 - v²/c²)^1/2  , Lorentz transform for time t' as function of t

 

extracting t, it gives

 

  t = t' + xv.c^-2/(1 - v²/c²)^1/2  , Lorentz transform for time t as function of t'

 

Also, replacing K in x' = K (x - vt), it gives Lorentz transform of x' as function of x.

 

Finally, replacing K in x = K (x' + vt'), it gives Lorentz transform of x as function of x'.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Don't blame me. Blame relativists that polludes Internet and books with things like those above.

Edited May 11, 2019 by rhertz

[sluggo]

rhertz#241;

I don't label people, since the truth of a statement is in the statement, not the one who states it. Sometimes they are merely repeating something they heard or read. With that, there is the possibility that the statement was false or they misinterpreted it.
I didn't see O. Heaviside in your list, and purposely mention him as an example of those in the background, who contribute to new ideas (work of Maxwell and Einstein), without any recognition.
In general my interest in the personal life of authors/inventors is the history that lead them to the production of their idea, including eccentricities, as with Tesla! Great ideas but with a dark side.

Contrary to popular belief, science is philosophy augmented with measurement, its verification tool. Scientists graduate with a Ph.D.
The proof of a theory is via measurements, not personality.

As to Einstein and relativity, I would suggest spending time researching the experimental evidence that supports his theories. One link is: www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq


 

[rhertz]

 

rhertz#241;

 

I don't label people, since the truth of a statement is in the statement, not the one who states it. Sometimes they are merely repeating something they heard or read. With that, there is the possibility that the statement was false or they misinterpreted it.

I didn't see O. Heaviside in your list, and purposely mention him as an example of those in the background, who contribute to new ideas (work of Maxwell and Einstein), without any recognition.

In general my interest in the personal life of authors/inventors is the history that lead them to the production of their idea, including eccentricities, as with Tesla! Great ideas but with a dark side.

 

Contrary to popular belief, science is philosophy augmented with measurement, its verification tool. Scientists graduate with a Ph.D.

The proof of a theory is via measurements, not personality.

As to Einstein and relativity, I would suggest spending time researching the experimental evidence that supports his theories. One link is: www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq

 

 

 

 

 

You are correct with your observation about Heaviside, and it is a big mistake that I didn't include his name within the notable ones.

 

I read Heaviside's biography last year, because I seeked it.

 

For me, Heaviside was a genius at physics, electromagnetism and electrical engineering. I knew of him first, long time ago, for his

Heaviside's Echelon which, along with Dirac's Impulse Function, are fundamental for electrical and electronic engineers to analyze

temporal and frequential behaviors of a black box excited with one of these electrical signals (which have specific instruments to

generate them, as well as to analyze the time-frequency response in TRANSIENTS (using Laplace instead of Fourier).

 

Not having any formal degree (he had plenty honoris causa degrees) and being extremely excentric (and poor) didn't help Heaviside

personal marketing as others (like Faraday did). Also, didn't help that he lived almost as an hermit and (as I read), his final years were

filled with sad experiences and he WAS FORCED to accept a "pension" from the state (I don't know the proper name of this pension).

 

He died in an undeserved way, and has been almost erased from history of physics by the "community of historians", who re-write

history following a hidden agenda. He went into oblivion at the current technical bibliography, and didn't survive into the pop culture

of science and its icons. Another example (on the technical side) is Nikola Tesla, whose figure endures along history because he was

iconic in his excentricity and his "supressed inventions". Tesla became a popular myth because of the power of the US MSM.

Heaviside did poorly along history, because of the classist MSM at Britain.

 

But both deserve my utter respect.

 

I know that Heaviside was involved into relativity even before Lorentz, with whom we worked and probably enlighted. There was a trio:

Heaviside-Hertz-Lorentz, who took Maxwell electromagnetism and transformed his theory using vectorial algebra, subject that I understand

had Heaviside as one of his creators and main advocates.

 

I also remember the Heaviside equations for transmission lines, which were foundational for the nascent electrical engineering as we know it today.

 

With just this work, it was enough to make him famous, as it opened the door to the understanding of how electrical signals are affected while travelling

along transmission lines. His theory was fundamental for Pupin, a physicist who invented the "pupinitization" of telephone lines, allowing to extend its

coverage for about 100 Km, and all of this before the active amplifier.

 

But history of science is UNFAIR. For instance (and there is something weird here): experimental physicists and engineers rank very low compared with

theoretical physicists.

 

This is unforgivable for me.

[Sherwood]

 

 

3) Also, synchronizing frames clocks at t=t'=0 with a flash of spherical shape, it is verified afterwards that:

 

   x = ct and x' = ct'  (second postulate of STR)

 

 

This is exactly where Special Relativity (SR) goes wrong.  The second postulate implies that something can go the same speed in both of two moving reference frames moving with respect to each other.  The something, light or whatever, will travel different distances during the time involved.  Therefore the velocities are different.  x=ct and x'=c't.  This is true for anything at any speed.  My car can't be going the same speed with respect to everything else in the universe moving at various speeds and yours can't either.  Neither can light or anything else.  However if you postulate (insist, assume, etc.) that it can, then you get the math of SR--with c being the speed of my car (or yours).  Also c seeming to be a maximum speed and the other oddities of SR.

I'm running in the forest so your clock slows down!  SR math can 'solve' problems because it is actually a 1:1 transliteration of Newtonian Mechanics (NM).  Every NM depiction can be turned into a SR depiction and vice versa.  See previous posts about this.

[Sherwood]

"Nothing can go faster than light speed c."  

 

SR transform equation

x' = g(x+ut) = g(u/c)ct + gx

where g is the SR gamma function.

Let x' be traveling past x=0.  A light pulse travels for 1 microsecond at speed c=300 million meters/sec in the unprimed frame.  I=ct equals 300 meters.  Assume the speed of the prime frame is u/c=0.8.  Then g=5/3.  Therefore x' equals (5/3)(0.8)ct or 400 meters.

 

So the object traveled x'= g(u/c)(ct) = (5/3)(0.8)300 = 400 meters while the light traveled (ct)=300 meters.  Looks like 'faster than light' to me.  But the SR speed u was only 0.8c.  

 

Newtonian Mechanics (NM) version:

Object traveled 400 meters while light traveled 300 meters at 300 million meters/sec.

(x'/t) = v

(x'/ct) = (v/c) = 400/300 = 4/3

v = (4/3)c

Transliteration of SR to NM:

v = gu

where v is NM velocity and u is SR velocity and the two are never ever the same, although they approach each other at low speeds.

           u/c                        g                         v=g(u/c)      

          0.9                    2.294157                2.064742

          0.99                  7.088812                7.017924  

          0.999              22.366272              22.349058

          0.9999            70.712446              70.705375

[Sherwood]

Reason #2:  "Nothing can go faster than light speed c."  

 

 

Special Relativity (SR) Interval equation

I² = (ct')²- x'²

(ct')²= x'²+ I²

 

u' = x'/t'

(u'/c) = (x'/ct') = x'/(x'² + I²)^1/2

Obviously u'/c can never equal 1.0

 

But according to SR

x' = g(x + ut) = g(u/c)ct + gx

When x=0, ct=I, the distance the light traveled at speed c for time t.

The ratio of the distance the object traveled, x', to the distance light traveled, I=ct, is g(ul/c) which approaches infinity as u/c approaches 1.0

[fahrquad]

What are you driving, a horse and buggy?

 

Nah, its a black 2010 Dodge Challenger SE with the 250hp 3.5 liter V-6 engine.  Later models had the 3.6 liter Pentastar 305hp V-6 engine. To the best of my recollection the acceleration was pretty decent, but then I haven't driven in almost 2 years.  That whole dying twice thing kind of took up a lot of my time.  My wife's 2017 Toyota Corolla is light on the G's, and my 1974 MG Midget did 0-60mph in a week or so when I was still driving it.  Most of the cars on the market are not GT-350's, Ferraris, Porshes, Superbirds, or Shelbys and are anemic by comparison.

[ralfcis]

Sherwood you're confusing Yv with v. v is limited to c but Yv is limitless. v=x/t, Yv =Yx/t =x/t'. At .8c, Y=5/3 so Yv=4/3c but Yc in that frame is 5/3c. It's all a matter of perspective and Yv or Yc is the proper distance travelled over the dilated time of the depicted moving frame from the depicted stationary frame's perspective. See my last posts in the relativity and simple algebra thread for more details.

[rhertz]

"Nothing can go faster than light speed c."  

 

SR transform equation

x' = g(x+ut) = g(u/c)ct + gx

where g is the SR gamma function.

Let x' be traveling past x=0.  A light pulse travels for 1 microsecond at speed c=300 million meters/sec in the unprimed frame.  I=ct equals 300 meters.  Assume the speed of the prime frame is u/c=0.8.  Then g=5/3.  Therefore x' equals (5/3)(0. 8)ct or 400 meters.

 

So the object traveled x'= g(u/c)(ct) = (5/3)(0.8)300 = 400 meters while the light traveled (ct)=300 meters.  Looks like 'faster than light' to me.  But the SR speed u was only 0.8c.  

 

Newtonian Mechanics (NM) version:

Object traveled 400 meters while light traveled 300 meters at 300 million meters/sec.

(x'/t) = v

(x'/ct) = (v/c) = 400/300 = 4/3

v = (4/3)c

Transliteration of SR to NM:

v = gu

where v is NM velocity and u is SR velocity and the two are never ever the same, although they approach each other at low speeds.

           u/c                        g                         v=g(u/c)      

          0.9                    2.294157                2.064742

          0.99                  7.088812                7.017924  

          0.999              22.366272              22.349058

          0.9999            70.712446              70.705375

 

I hear you,

 

But you must understand how Einstein prepares his sophism of Simultaneity by reading carefully his explanation, from his original paper (in English):

I quote here the main part, which he prepares for his § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times

 

Excerpt from the original 1905 paper:

 

I. KINEMATICAL PART

§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity

 

.......................

We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, f

or the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel

from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.

 

Let a ray of light start at the “A time” t_A from A towards B, let it at the “B time” t_B be reflected at B in the direction of A,

and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'_A.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

                                            t_B − t_A = t'_A − t_B.    (Here resides the mathematical trick he uses later. By doing so, he eliminates

                                                                            "v" from the c+v  and c-v expressions, so he obtains a round trip time t'_A = 2T_B if T_A=0,

                                                                             which is perfectly valid because he starts measuring time differences since T_A)

We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that

the following relations are universally valid:—

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

 

................... Now he finishes § 1

 

In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2AB/(t'_A − t_A) = c,                                      (Here is trickery is more evident. Adopting t_A = 0 as before, you get c = 2AB/t'_A = AB/t_B .

                                                                  In this way, he is anticipating that c has the same value either in the first lapse when the mirror is hit

                                                                  or in the second lapse, when the light beam bounces back from the mirror to its origin A. Clever?)

to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space.

 

.............................. End of excerpts from § 1

 

Now, pay attention to the mathematical and logical crime he commits at point § 2, using § 1.

 

 

§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times

The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the

principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define

as follows:—

................................

 

We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to

both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart

from A at the time t_A, let it be reflected at B at the time t_B, and reach A again at the time t'_A.

 

(Now he includes "v" in the famous round trip, because he needs the factors (c - v) and (c + v) to

obtain the famous c²-v², otherwise impossible to appear. But, doing so, he violates his own 2nd. postulate:

speed of light dependent on the motion v of the source or reflexion of the source).

 

Taking  into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that

t_B − t_A = r_AB/(c − v)     and         t'_A − t_B = r_AB/(c + v)

where r_AB denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system. Observers moving

with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the

stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

 

........................................

 

The rest is mathematical garbage, as he struggles to get the Gamma factor, which he PURPOSEDLY calls Beta!

 

Besides, if you follow the tricky derivation, it follows the premises and even the notation of Woldemar Voigt for the

moving reference.

 

At the end of the paper, he uses the term "longitudinal mass". This particular term was unheard by then, except at

only one writing: the Lorentz's 1904 paper!

 

I stop here, as I don't want to bash STR (here).

[sluggo]

MikeBrace#243

 

This is clearly impossible.   How could we obtain the same fixed valued for C whether the detector is stationary, or when its moving with the lights at any speed, and also even when moving in the exact opposite direction to the light vector at any speed?

When a plane is flying at a constant speed v, in a straight line, without turbulence, Ann can toss a ball across the aisle at 90 deg, to Bob on the opposite side. If the act was recorded on video, and filmed in the plane parked on the ground, there would be no detectable difference. The reason: In the air, all elements in the plane have mass which acquires the plane speed v.
If in the same scenario, Ann directs a light beam at Bob, light has no mass to acquire the speed of the plane, but it does have momentum that directs it forward, while moving at c.
This results in a tiny insignificant delay before reaching Bob, but in a high speed transportation method, the delay becomes more significant.
The propagation speed is c in a vacuum and before SR was known to be slower in denser mediums which can be calculated using a correction factor labeled the index of refraction. You have to know some history.

[sluggo]

Sherwood#245

It is also moving at different speeds past various other observers such as observers D,G,Q,M,K, etc., etc., who are probably moving at different speeds with respect to the clock and each other.  Thus the clock has to read different times with respect to each that is at a different velocity.  Difficult for one clock.

 

[The motion of an observer does not affect the rates of distant clocks or the distance to those clocks.]

'Time dilation' exists only in the mathematics of SR, not in reality.  Light starts out in a spherical direction from a source at speed c.  (If light 'travels at speed c in all reference frames', it certainly travels at speed c from its source.)  Something (object) moves with respect to the light source, call it in the horizontal direction.  Then the 'vertical' (perpendicular) portion of the light has moved distance (I=ct) from the source at speed c for time t.  Meanwhile, the object has moved the horizontal distance x'. So now the light is the vertical distance I plus the horizontal distance x' from the object for a total distance of

                                             H=(x2+I2)1/2 

 

 

[A sphere of light would be a composite photon emission in all directions. In a lab experiment, light pulses consisting of even single photons can be directed along selected paths to detectors. If a single photon was represented as a sphere, then a group of mirrors on a ceiling would all reflect from an emission from the floor. If the photon energy was E, then the total energy of the reflections could be made arbitrarily large by adding more mirrors. That violates the conservation of energy.]

The light clock shows time dilation in its simplest form.
The clock is an EmitterDetector and a mirror M separated by a distance of 1 unit.
In fig.1 Ann records a photon moving to M, for a half cycle, At=.5.
In fig.2 an identical B-clock moves past Ann at .6c. The photon moves the same distance through space in the same A-time At=.5, but the photon is only 80% to its mirror M.
The reason: the photon has to divide its energy with an x component vt compensating for the clock motion, and a p component ut which becomes the active part of the clock. The geometry results in

 

u=sqrt(c^2-v^2) or u/c=1/gamma

Light speed within the clock <c, thus the B-clock process runs slower then that of the A-clock, as perceived by A. Adding the fact that Bob's biological clock also runs at 80%, Bob accepts his clock as correct, and concludes c' = x'/t' = (x/g)/(g/t) = x/t = c.

An observer cannot move relative to himself, thus his motion vt masks the x component of light and he is only aware of the p component, as in fig.3. It is obvious from fig.2 that constant and independent light speed (postulate 2) is responsible for the scaling effect, which alters the moving observers perception of his world.
In Newtonian physics, time was universal, independent of motion, therefore the effects of SR cannot be derived from Newton, but variables can always be converted.

[ralfcis]

Well why didn't you say so years ago? That is one simple, irrefutable mathematical proof of length contraction . . . except for one tiny problem. It's a circular argument. It is based on the assumption that length contraction is real and is the only possible explanation hence it must be the only possible explanation. Since there can't be another possible explanation, why even look at another possible explanation that is only based on time dilation. All of relativity is based on assumptions that are borne out by the results so relativity must be correct. How else can c remain constant from all perspectives if time dilation doesn't work in tandem with length contraction as Einstein said so. QED ridiculous. Instead of endlessly repeating these circular arguments, show me where my math goes wrong that has an alternate explanation for length contraction. (You can wait until I wrap up the specific proof for the light clock and interferometer.) I say there's no need for an x'-axis (which is the same thing as relativity of simultaneity or  time dilation from the moving perspective). As uncle Al said, a theory must be as simple as possible but no simpler so if everything can be explained without the term length contraction, then the theory is not as simple as possible is it. 

Edited May 12, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Sherwood#254;
 

SR transform equation

x' = g(x+ut) = g(u/c)ct + gx

where g is the SR gamma function.

 

[That is the reciprocal form for x when you know x'.
The plus should be a minus.
If the event is the location of B after 1sec at .8,
Coordinates (x, t) for the rest frame A are (.8, 1).
Coordinates (x, t) for the frame B are (0, .6).

 

[sluggo]

rhertz#243;

t_B − t_A = t'_A − t_B

2AB/(t'_A − t_A) = c,

-
 

In this way, he is anticipating that c has the same value either in the first lapse when the mirror is hit or in the second lapse, when the light beam bounces back from the mirror to its origin A. Clever?)

 

[He has just defined the outbound trip time equal to the inbound time for synchronous stationary clocks located at different places. This is what an observer at rest would expect.
-
 

(Now he includes "v" in the famous round trip, because he needs the factors (c - v) and (c + v) to obtain the famous c²-v², otherwise impossible to appear. But, doing so, he violates his own 2nd. postulate: speed of light dependent on the motion v of the source or reflexion of the source).

 

[Not true. The expressions (c±v) are used when two objects are moving and both velocities are required for measurements. It is not propagation speed in space.]