Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[exchemist]

O…M…G!

 

You made this video? And then posted it? You’re even proud of it??

 

I can’t even … 

 

Um, have you ever traveled? You know, in a car, or in a boat, or on a choo-choo train, or on an aero plane?

 

I don’t know … this is so nuts … am I seriously explaining this to you?

 

So, you are traveling in constant uniform motion on some conveyance … and you take out a little rubber ball, and you bounce it …

 

Um, what happens?

 

It comes back up to your hand, doesn’t it??

 

And then you can bounce it again, and it comes up to your hand again, and again, and …

 

Um, what do you think the ball’s path looks like from the POV of an at-rest observer, genius?

 

It’s a zigzag path!

 

Now let’s just consider the earth, and, for simplicity sake, discount its rotation on its axis. The earth is revolving at 19 miles per second around a common center of gravity with the sun. This means that, according to your reasoning, if I throw a ball into the air  and it takes one second to reach its highest point, and another second to fall back down into my palm, why, it won’t fall into my palm at all — it will fall on the ground 38 miles behind me! 

  

So what’s the difference between a ball and the photon, which both (obviously!) follow zigzag paths from the POV of a rest frame?

 

ONLY this: the bouncy ball picks up the velocity of the conveyance, in accord with Galileo’s addition of velocities formula … but the photon doesn’t. Which is EXACTLY how we get relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction, Sherlock!   

 

Wow, this is crazy! 

 

Dude, they oughta put you in a rubber room! :lol:

     

 

Maybe we've got him wrong and he's not a troll at all but writing from a psychiatric institution somewhere. He wouldn't be the first on this forum to be like that. 

[marcospolo]

   

 

Maybe we've got him wrong and he's not a troll at all but writing from a psychiatric institution somewhere. He wouldn't be the first on this forum to be like that. 

Don't be an idiot, if you have reason to say things like that, man up and provide the reason. Where is the error in my explanation of the action of light as per my example with the moon and the mirror.

Come on, lets here it.

[OceanBreeze]

Hold on people, I know it sounds crazy, and sometimes it is easier to laugh than to actually think about something, but Marco may just have a point here.

 

Ask yourself if a massless photon has inertia. We know it has momentum, but that momentum acts to keep the photon moving in a straight line, in the direction it is fired.

 

To move sideways with the spaceship that has the lightclock, the photon must have inertia, same as the rubber ball. In other words, it must be inertial in the inertial frame. As far as I know, a massless particle does have momentum, but does that mean it is inertial?

 

I am not sure. But, one way to resolve the issue is to have the lightclock at rest and the observer moving. After all, motion is relative! In this case there cannot be any objection about the mirror moving out of the path of the photon. The photon strikes the mirror and bounces straight up and down in the stationary frame. What does the moving observer see? He must see the zig zag motion and conclude the clock is running slower, so he concludes the moving clock (moving relative to him) runs slower.

 

So, it MUST be true that when the observer is at rest and the clock is in motion, the same zig zag is seen, settling the issue. Otherwise, a lightclock can be used to detect absolute motion among inertial frames!

 

THAT would get somebody a Nobel prize, for sure!

 

So, hold on to that video Marco; it may be worth a lot of fame and glory and money to you someday.

 

 

 

[LightStorm]

A ball travels a zig zag path because it acquires the velocity of the emitter. A photon does not acquire the velocity of the emitter thus aberration occurs and the path is not a zig zag path, it would simply go up and down at 90 degrees. But if you happen to have a telescope inside you need to tilt it by an angle v/c because the photon travels at 90 degrees and you are moving. This is per classical physics.

[OceanBreeze]

A ball travels a zig zag path because it acquires the velocity of the emitter. A photon does not acquire the velocity of the emitter thus aberration occurs and the path is not a zig zag path, it would simply go up and down at 90 degrees. But if you happen to have a telescope inside you need to tilt it by an angle v/c because the photon travels at 90 degrees and you are moving. This is per classical physics.

 

That in no way replies to what I asked in my post. If the LC is at rest and the observer is moving, he WILL see the zig zag path.

 

Motion is relative, so if the LC is moving and the observer is at rest, he must also see the zig zag path or the LC can detect absolute motion.

 

Do you think the LC can be used to detect absolute motion among inertial frames?

[LightStorm]

That in no way replies to what I asked in my post. If the LC is at rest and the observer is moving, he WILL see the zig zag path.

 

Motion is relative, so if the LC is moving and the observer is at rest, he must also see the zig zag path or the LC can detect absolute motion.

 

Do you think the LC can be used to detect absolute motion among inertial frames?

 

According to classical physics and classical aberration, yes. If you insert a telescope in the LC, you need to tilt it in the direction of motion of the LC.

[OceanBreeze]

According to classical physics and classical aberration, yes. If you insert a telescope in the LC, you need to tilt it in the direction of motion of the LC.

 

You are evading my question. My question has nothing to do with a telescope or aberration of light.

 

It is all about relative motion.

Edited May 3, 2019 by OceanBreeze

[LightStorm]

You are evading my question. My question has nothing to do with a telescope or aberration of light.

I am not. I said, yes. But I also added a telescope so you could you see the whole picture. The tilt of the telescope gives you the velocity of the LC.

[OceanBreeze]

You said yes to what?

 

You agree that a LC can be used to detect absolute motion among two frames that are in relative motion to each other, moving inertially?

 

Cap the telescope, it is not relevant!

[LightStorm]

You said yes to what? 

 

You agree that a LC can be used to detect absolute motion among two frames that are in relative motion to each other, moving inertially?

In classical physics via classical aberration, a LC can be used to determine the velocity of the LC. In the context of Relativity the answer is no. Only an experiment will provide the final answer. One could argue MMX is such an experiment. 

[LightStorm]

Cap the telescope, it is not relevant!

 

The relevant physics, imo, in the context of a LC is aberration and aberration is all about, tilting a telescope. Also relativistic law of reflection is relevant here. Classical law of reflection and relativistic law of reflection are different beasts. That's why I said per classical physics a LC can be used to determine the velocity of the LC. Not according to relativity physics.

[OceanBreeze]

You covered all the bases with that one!

 

I guess I can't pin you down, eh?

 

 

Nothing that we know of can detect absolute motion between two inertial reference frames that are moving relative to one another.

 

So, the zig zag photon will be seen by the observer that is at rest to the moving clock or moving with respect to a stationary clock (same thing).

 

And the observer that is in relative motion to the LC will see the clock slowing down.

 

IF the LC could detect what is "really moving" between two inertial frames that are moving relative to each other, you and Marco can have a Nobel prize to fight over.

 

[LightStorm]

IF the LC could detect what is "really moving" between two inertial frames that are moving relative to each other, you and Marco can have a Nobel prize to fight over.

 

Heh sure, I like a good fight. But aberration is the only way to solve the question of "who is really moving". Take a telescope, observe a light bulb on a tall structure from a far.  As far as possible. The farther the better. If you detect aberration, (the need tilt the telescope) then you have detected you own velocity. I would encourage someone to do this. This is an inexpensive experiment.

[OceanBreeze]

Heh sure, I like a good fight. But aberration is the only way to solve the question of "who is really moving". Take a telescope, observe a light bulb on a tall structure from a far.  As far as possible. The farther the better. If you detect aberration, (the need tilt the telescope) then you have detected you own velocity. I would encourage someone to do this. This is an inexpensive experiment.

 

You will have detected your velocity relative to the light bulb.

 

What is moving, you or the bulb?

Edited May 3, 2019 by OceanBreeze

[LightStorm]

You will have detected your velocity relative to the light bulb.

 

What is moving, you or the bulb?

 

The bulb and me are stationary. The moving entity is the earth and that corresponds to 20.5 arcseconds roughly.

[marcospolo]

Hold on people, I know it sounds crazy, and sometimes it is easier to laugh than to actually think about something, but Marco may just have a point here.

 

Ask yourself if a massless photon has inertia. We know it has momentum, but that momentum acts to keep the photon moving in a straight line, in the direction it is fired.

 

To move sideways with the spaceship that has the lightclock, the photon must have inertia, same as the rubber ball. In other words, it must be inertial in the inertial frame. As far as I know, a massless particle does have momentum, but does that mean it is inertial?

 

I am not sure. But, one way to resolve the issue is to have the lightclock at rest and the observer moving. After all, motion is relative! In this case there cannot be any objection about the mirror moving out of the path of the photon. The photon strikes the mirror and bounces straight up and down in the stationary frame. What does the moving observer see? He must see the zig zag motion and conclude the clock is running slower, so he concludes the moving clock (moving relative to him) runs slower.

 

So, it MUST be true that when the observer is at rest and the clock is in motion, the same zig zag is seen, settling the issue. Otherwise, a lightclock can be used to detect absolute motion among inertial frames!

 

THAT would get somebody a Nobel prize, for sure!

 

So, hold on to that video Marco; it may be worth a lot of fame and glory and money to you someday.

But according to SR, you can never have a preferred frame, all inertial frames are equal. You can NOT start saying that this or that frame is the stationary one.

Try to stay consistent with the theory of SR, until you simply cant get a sensible result.

So there can be no differences according to Einstein between the two inertial frames, no need to try to claim one is moving any the other is stationary, in an attempt to get around this question.

 

Your statement  "So, it MUST be true that when the observer is at rest and the clock is in motion, the same zig zag is seen, settling the issue." is contrary to SR, so cant be considered.

 

You say it MUST be true because if it were not, then the consequences would be that SR is not a valid theory. Ive been trying to point this out for ages, using this example and a bunch of other examples.

 

Your next sentence, "Otherwise, a lightclock can be used to detect absolute motion among inertial frames!"  is logical, and this is exactly the first bit of evidence to demonstrate that at least one of the Postulates of Einsteins 1905 paper is invalid.

 

As far as light speed being a constant goes, always c in any and all inertial frames, I ask you if we just consider one frame, the frame that light is moving in, "what is the speed of the light relative to in this frame?"  The only possible answer is that if light is doing a set speed then there must be a convenient if not imaginary stationary origin from which to measure the speed of c. That is the absolute stationary frame itself, which can be defined mathematically as light speed MINUS that speed = zero speed.

 

So unless you can overcome this issue, that if we actually could construct a light clock ignoring the problem that such a device is impossible, and accelerated it up to near light speed, in the process, we would find that the photon would bash into the walls of the light clock, never reaching the top mirror.

 

UNLESS, light can gain inertia from its surroundings, in which case it would have a velocity of c plus a proportion of the velocity of the spaceship. c =v, thus exceeding its own max velocity.

 

No matter which way you go, SR will fail.

 

There are many other ways to show that SR fails as an hypothesis, if you are interested. Don't laugh, think.

Edited May 3, 2019 by marcospolo

[LightStorm]

Ok Sherwood, I have understood what you are saying.  You make the same mistake that Einstein and every relativist makes about these inertial reference frames and the irrational use of the Pythagorean Theorem, which is the Math related to geometry, not Physics.

To see why you cant do this, have a look at my short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58wEhAk5upU

 

Nice animation. You might wanna take a look at my animation. It is an extension of your animation in the context of the MMX per classical physics. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbOzYRUKL5