The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Speed of Light is Infinite  (Read 27789 times)

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #75 on: 03/06/2011 14:19:24 »
Imatfaal,

Your example seemed as though it might be contradicting the preceding quotation, but since you have reinforced this, everything is clear now. Thankyou.

Yes, I am aware of the physics of observations that you describe. That is why I picked an example with no motion either away from, or towards, the observers. In the example the observations are made PARALLEL to the direction of motion and only the time dilation of motion without Doppler effects is observed. I still predict the red and blue shifts. It matters not HOW the passing ship achieved this situation, but only that the time rates are different at the moment of observation. Your explanation of observations, although traditional, is therefore not applicable in this case.

Of course "we definitely need GR and SR"................ until something better comes along.



I will take up your challenge regarding the math, but I am slightly perterbed by the thinly veiled contempt for ideas without math. Modern mainstream science is perhaps too dismissive of new and challenging ideas without mathematical "proofs".
Read my previous message with quotation from Tom Van Flandern.

Anyone know a good mathematician who does as he's told?
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 14:24:02 by Ken Hughes »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #76 on: 03/06/2011 14:41:06 »
I read the quote - I don't agree. 

I will re-read your description of your setup.

And btw NO good mathematician does what he is told; he follows the rules and logic - that's why maths is invaluable and any science without maths is hand-waving.

Edit
---

You are gonna have to explain your setup more - I dont get it :-)
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 14:43:31 by imatfaal »
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #77 on: 03/06/2011 15:25:39 »
Imatfaal,

Of course you don't agree. I didn't expect you to.

Of course you will maintain that every good mathematician is "his own man". Maybe that's a problem sometimes. It is very rare to find a person who has a full grasp of physics, who has original ideas and the courage to challenge the mainstream view, especially these days. Superimpose upon that the requirement for full competency in higher maths and you're almost asking the impossible.
Even Einstein had mathematical help did he not? Newton did it all and he was indeed a rare man.
If a mathematician is contracted to a theorist and given a brief which described the basis of and limits within which he must work, he will b---y well do as he's told or lose his job. He can naturally discuss the merits, or otherwise of changing the basis. He can resign if he thinks his position is impossible.
That's the world of Engineering.
The point I am making is that the real theorist must oversee and guide the mathematician, even if it's the same person, and NOT the other way around. If the theorist tells him that you can bend a vacuum then he will simply produce equations that allow it. If he's told he can't and must produce equations on that basis, he must try and do so.
I never was a fan of Einstein's marble slab and the mysterious cosmic blow torch. His math and theory though are almost miraculous.

"Any science without math is hand waving" I need not comment.

I'll explain my set up more then;-

Two clocks, synchronised on Earth. They are in the same frame and will "tick" at the same rate.
Put one in a very very fast space vehicle and blast off into the "Aether".
The ship travels a way away, it does not matter in what direction, or for how long, or if the velocity has been uniform throughout, but eventually the ship returns to pass the Earth closely and at very great speed.
Observations are made from the Earth as it passes directly overhead.
Simultaneously, observations are made of the Earth, from the ship, at the same instant.

The reason I have set this up this way is so that, at the instant of observation, there is no Doppler shift, at least within the limits of simultaneity.
There is, however, a measurable dilation of time for the ship's frame due to its motion, given by 1- ROOT 1-v2/c2
So, the ship's clock (frame of reference) is ticking at a slower rate than the Earth clock as it passes overhead.

What will be the relative observations between frames?

I am saying the Earth observer will observe redshift of the ship's frame, and,
The ship's observer will observe blueshift of the Earth's frame.

Please explain to me and for the benefit of others, in detail, and in the English language, where I have got this wrong.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 15:29:45 by Ken Hughes »
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #78 on: 03/06/2011 15:44:47 »
Well, we agree on SR needing both a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation, right?
You see the Lorentz contraction as a illusion, and I don't :)

The muon exemplifies how I see it. Take a look here Time Dilation - An Experiment With Mu-Mesons. Then look at this Muon Experiment. (comparing frames of reference) Together they become a basis for my point of view.

Then we come to 'time' :)

And there both you and me are interested in what it is, heh. You have an idea of times arrow as i understands it? Where we differ seems to be in that you put a importance on whom, of two uniformly moving objects, 'really' is moving. Where I see it as a 'relative motion', only definable relative arbitrarily defined objects of a 'system' like with two rockets in space, I understands it as you expect it to be definable as belonging to one of them.

If that would be true then there should be a difference in the same physics experiments, done at each one of them, and as far as I know there isn't. There are other arguments too but that's the crucial one I think. There is also the gravitational blue-shift of course. But that's a special circumstance, coupled to invariant mass.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #79 on: 03/06/2011 16:28:13 »
You can see a gravitational blue shift two ways. The first is to assume that it actually is the intrinsic 'energy' of that photon that change in a gravitational system. If we take Earth as an example you have two 'shifts' depending on the vector of the 'propagation' of our photon.

If it is infalling to earth, and we assume that you're on it (earth that is:), then you will observe that photon as 'blue-shifted' and so of a higher energy (frequency). And it will be true for you as you measure it. The opposite will be true if you measure it as it climbs Earths gravity-well, leaving it for space. Those that look at it in this way often use the words relative mass/momentum and 'potential energy'.

The other way to look at that phenomena is to define it as all 'photons'/light-quanta only can be of one 'energy' (wave= frequency), meaning that allthough different 'energy's' are possible, as shown by the photoelectric effect and black body radiation, a photon does not change that intrinsic 'energy'. If that is true, which I believe, any red and blue shift only can be a relation, defining something that's a variable dynamic relation to relative motion and gravitational 'accelerations' as Earth's one gravity is. You can also see it as a definition relative 'clocks' that ticks differently depending on position in a gravitational field.

I find the idea of 'dynamic relations' to be clearer myself as that clearly state that you only can see this in a relation, and in that it does not allow people to draw the conclusion that, when defined as clocks from a thought up observer will tick differently as he compares, it also must mean that if those people move down a meter that 'intrinsic measure' of 'time' given to them somehow gets 'longer'.

If you would consider time in meters, and I state that you have ten meters of time allowed, before your time is up, then those ten meters will be the same on Kilimanjaro as in a mine shaft. That 'intrinsic' length do not become any longer for you according to your yardstick/wristwatch, although all other 'frames of reference' will be found change their 'room time' relative your elevation.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 17:02:40 by yor_on »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #80 on: 03/06/2011 16:41:48 »
it's called the transverse doppler effect

f′=f0.√(1-β2) - it comes as θ=π/2 and Cosθ=0

Light which is received at this instant is blue-shifted, light emitted at this instant is red-shifted.

And if you want a long-winded explanation GIYF.

 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #81 on: 03/06/2011 16:47:21 »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #82 on: 03/06/2011 18:05:52 »
Ah! I get it now. The debate is about what you would "see" if you had the ability to observe the other clock. I have no clue about that, so I will defer to the experts. The only thing I know is that the "stay at home" twin ages a lot more that the travelling twin, so, obviously, their clocks were running at different rates.
 

Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #83 on: 03/06/2011 18:14:07 »
Hm Ken?

You wrote "In the example the observations are made PARALLEL to the direction of motion and only the time dilation of motion without Doppler effects is observed. " answering Imatfaal.

There is no way you can avoid a Doppler effect by passing someone at a higher speed, relative whatever you measure that speed against. To avoid a Doppler you must be at rest relative what you measure. Having a motion relative it you can't be 'at rest' no matter your angle. Neither is there any instant of having the same 'frame of reference' in your description, which means that you two never will agree on something happening simultaneously, as you will define both location and time differently.

I guess that you mean that the Lorentz contraction will become 'invisible' if you got Earth lined up at at right angle to you, and measured it just as you pass it? I'm not sure on that, the geometry becomes severely 'twisted' and you will be able to look 'around corners' as your uniform speed increase with accelerations. The thing about the equivalence of all uniform motions is not what you can see looking out from your ship, it's defined as what experiments you can do in a 'black room scenario' inside that ship, and, if you would find the outcomes to differ with your 'uniform motion' getting faster, accelerating in between, then drifting again?

To me that goes back to the idea that if all experiments give you the same outcome, no matter where in the universe you are, then we have a 'same universe' with the same physics. If we would prove that light changed its 'speed' in a vacuum depending on where we measured, compensating for gravity/bent SpaceTime then it would be very different.
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #84 on: 03/06/2011 21:57:14 »
Imatfaal,

You left the "S" off GIYFS.

Let's get gravity out of the situation, it's confusing people.
Let's say the two clocks are both on ships, having taken off from Earth. Eventually they pass each other in opposite directions, but one is going much faster than the other (it has put much more energy into its acceleration).

I guess what this all boils down to is this question;-

If SR states that slow clocks are observed from both moving frames then how can the real differential time dilation shown by the clocks after the journey, be reconciled with this observation?

This is all I'm trying to get an answer to. Please can you help?
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #85 on: 03/06/2011 23:05:31 »
"Google is your friend" - it was a simple statement not an injunction  ;)

No let's stop changing the situation.  If you/I cannot explain with the twins then it isn't working. 

Both twins see the clocks tick at 1/14 of the speed on the outward leg (that's the relativistic doppler effect) both twins see the clocks tick at 14 times the speed on the inward leg - you are claiming (I thinK) that the SR symmetry means that the clocks cannot be asymmetric.  but this setup does not mean it does not mean that both twins count the same number of clicks on the others clock.  I did say earlier that a bit of sums with ticks per second and leg length would help, and no one took up the challenge.

OK - I presume we agree that on their own clock the twins after the trip show 14ish years for the Twinstayathome and 2 years for Twinspaceman.  So we must do four sums now

Twinspaceman Outbound leg - from his perspective this lasts about a year - he sees the earthbound clock tick at 1/14 seconds add that up 1/14 of a year seems to have passed.

Twinspaceman Inbound leg - from his perspective this lasts about a year - he sees the earthbound clock tick at 14 times per second that adds up to about 14 years.

Twinspaceman  - so on the two legs the spaceman observes the earth clock add up to just over 14 years

Twinstayathome Outbound leg - now you need to concentrate here - Stayathome sees the ship turn around when the earthbound clock is reading about just under 14 years (7 years to travel and just under 7 years for the light to get back).  this is the important bit - Stayathome does not see the turn around at 7 years, (he might be able to calculate at the end that was when it occurred)  He see the ship with a slow ticking clock, ie receding, for all the time the ship takes to get there PLUS all the time it takes the light to get back.  just under 14 years at 1/14 of a tick per second is one year(ish)

Twinstayathome Inbound leg.  Again - slightly counter-intuitive.  from the perspective of the stayathome the return trip lasts a matter of a few days ! remember the spaceman is racing the light home - he is only a tiny bit slower.  So from the turnaround point the light sets off to the earth - just under 7 years later it arrives and stayathome observes that the ship has turned, but for all those 7 years the spaceman has also be travelling back (only a little bit slower than the light).  Less than a month  at 14 ticks per second is a year   

So Twinstayathome Spends a long time watching the Spaceman retreat from him with a slow clock - and a very short time watching the spaceman rush back with a very fast clock.  the important bit is the turnaround can only be judged at Spaceman's halfway and not Stayathome's (this is the very SRish breaking of perceived classical simultaneity due to non infinite light speed and inertial frames).  Whilst 14 years is passing for Stayathome - he reads from Spacemans clock a change of 2 years. 


So, all in all,  Spaceman's clock according to Spaceman advances by 2year. And Stayathome's clock according to Stayathome advances by 14 years.  And because of the fundemental asymmetry of the turningpoint from the two different frames Spaceman's clock ticks 2 years worth of ticks according to Stayathome, and Stayathome's clock ticks 14 years worth of ticks according to Spaceman. 

So there is no paradox and no disagreement.


NB
- I have massaged the figures a tiny bit cos the sums would need a bit of work otherwise - but it does work out in the exact same terms as this heuristic.
- You can redo these calculations using worldlines, and other frames of reference and they all pan out the same. 
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 23:15:47 by imatfaal »
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #86 on: 04/06/2011 06:39:33 »
Lengths contraction does not reduce amount  of rotations.Time dilation makes.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #87 on: 04/06/2011 08:45:44 »
Lengths contraction does not reduce amount  of rotations.Time dilation makes.

Simplified, who is that comment addressed at?  And can you be a little more specific - i don't see what your point is
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #88 on: 04/06/2011 20:08:32 »
Imatfaal,

Thankyou very much for taking the time and trouble to post a very detailed and correct explanation of the "Twin Paradox" observations. I appreciate that.

On reflection, and on everyone's comments to date, I find myself aligning with "Geezer".
He implied he wasn't so concerned with the observation side of things, but that he was hanging on to the simple fact that one twin became older than the other.
I think this abdication of interest was a feint. He was, I believe, making the point that however you explain the observations throughought the procedure, the indisputable fact remains that one frame's time spent was shorter than the other's and from this we can say;-

For different inertial frames, there is always a net redshift/blueshift relation at any stage of the proceedings.

Which means, I still have the same understanding as I had at the beginning of the discussion.

I think we're stuck at this point with all of us maintaining our positions, except to say, that I fully understand the mainstream views tabled so far, but I still see a massive contradiction between the assertion that both clocks appear red shifted and the fact that there is an inevitable blueshift one way, however "invisible" this may be from any observation.
Simultaneity doesn't seem to resolve the issue and neither does an understanding of transverse Doppler effects.

Is there anyone with a different slant on things that might resolve the issue or show hwy there is no issue?
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #89 on: 04/06/2011 20:39:11 »
Yor_on,

I have not ignored your valued comments, but I can only handle one thread at a time. In response to your earlier post. I am not of the school that believes motion is anything other than just relative. We are aligned in this regard. Motion is purely relative and does not require an "Aether" type field to measure against.

However, I do see a contradiction in SR between this idea and the idea of time being at a slower rate in the moving frame.
By "moving frame", I do not mean one is moving and the other is not. I mean that if two entities start off in the same frame, then one, and only one of them moves, then it is the one that moves who's clock is slow relative to the other and this was proved in 1971.
There is a real difference in time rates and this difference is one way only, no matter how we interpret observations between frames during motion.

I am seeking either an explanation or an acceptance that SR has an issue
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #90 on: 04/06/2011 20:49:00 »
Simplified,

Do I take it you mean that length contraction cannot explain the difference in clock hand rotations, whereas time dilation can?

If so, then I agree.

The implication from this idea is that time dilation must be real as well as relative, because it has a real and permanent effect from one frame to another, whereas length contraction cannot be real because this does not have a permanent effect from one frame to another. Length contraction is therefore purely relative, an illusion.

Are we beginning to think the same?
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #91 on: 04/06/2011 21:35:11 »
Quote
I think we're stuck at this point with all of us maintaining our positions, except to say, that I fully understand the mainstream views tabled so far, but I still see a massive contradiction between the assertion that both clocks appear red shifted and the fact that there is an inevitable blueshift one way, however "invisible" this may be from any observation.

You clearly do not "fully understand the mainstream views" . 

1.  Both clocks are slow ticking/red shifted on the outbound passage fast ticking/blue shifted on the return leg - there are not only red-shifted.  There is no inverse relationship; this is simply incorrect.
2.  There is no one-way nor hidden  blue shift.
3.  There is no asymmetry in the ticking or the shifting - there is an asymmetry in the observation.  Ticking/Shifting is only relevant when viewed in terms of FoR with observation.

The sums were pretty simple - which one is wrong? 

« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 22:25:29 by imatfaal »
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #92 on: 04/06/2011 22:42:39 »
Hi Imatfaal,

I do understand the mainstream arguments and the way you have presented them. There is nothing wrong with the numbers. I agree with all of them.
I'm just not sure I agree with the mainstream interpretation of them. I still have my nagging doubt that there is something amiss, simply because the net end result is the moving twin being younger than the stay at home. This effect was proven in 1971.
I interpret this as the twin who has undergone the journey has had his clock slowed down throughout and therefore the ultimate, net overall effect is a relative redshift of the moving clock, but a relative blueshift of the stationary one. The moving clock changed its time rate due to its motion, but the stay at home did not.
I simply do not see the difference between say gravitational time dilation, where we all accept redshift in one direction and blueshift in the other, and inertial time dilation.
Now I know the mainstream says one is reciprocal and the other is not, but until someone can answer the above concerns without simply throwing the party line at me, then I will continue to have these ideas.
I am more than willing to accept an overriding argument, but so far, I haven't heard one.
To me, time dilation is time dilation and it doesn't matter how it is created. I believe the relative effects must be the same for the same phenomena "viewed" from the same perspectives.
What I mean is, if you look outwards from a large mass, say the Earth, we observe blueshift, simply because we are looking out into a region with a faster clock. Why should we think of inertial time dilation any differently?
I understand the mainstream, I just do not agree with it. (We are in New Theories after all).

I guess the key is my idea that Time Dilation is the reality and everything else is either a man made creation, or an illusion.
After all, we cannot detect a gravitational field, but only infer its existence from the acceleration of entities within it. We cannot find the graviton. We now know the gravitational force is unreal. We cannot prove the distortion of a vacuum in GR is a reality even though it gives us the right answers. Einstein never gave us the cause and effect of gravitation but only suggested that mass somehow "distorts" space and time. Don't forget Newton gave us the right answers but his gravitational law does not reflect reality, it is more a convenient, behavioural rule but it does not contain the cause and effect.

HOWEVER, we CAN detect the time rate field and this is the ONLY thing we can actually detect.
GR does state that "Newtonian gravitation can be regarded as the curvature of time" and you can develop a formula that describes the cause and effect relationship between time and "g". THIS is the fundamental law of gravitation, but it involves only the time curvature and nothing else.
Einstein has brilliantly conceived a geometrical way to model space itself in order to explain and quantify relative effects due to gravitational fields, or in my mind, time dilation fields.

Obviously. the mainstream may dismiss such ideas as "hand waving" until a mathematical proof is forthcoming, but ask yourself how did science get to where it is now without developing new ideas first and then the math?
Although we can make deductions from  mathematical formulae and science can improve its understanding with this method, I do not believe Einstein, for instance, did the math first and then inetrpreted the meaning from it.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 22:46:33 by Ken Hughes »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #93 on: 04/06/2011 22:48:27 »

I think this abdication of interest was a feint.


Although I am probably more interested in solving engineering type problem, believe me, there was no feint  ;D
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #94 on: 04/06/2011 23:07:09 »
Quote
net overall effect is a relative redshift of the moving clock, but a relative blueshift of the stationary one.
 This is not accepted physics - I can see where you are coming from, but you cannot average in this way.  If you calculate correctly (ie a time-weighted sum) then the clocks tick the same - but the time is different.  The red-shifting/slow-ticking is an artefact of the relative velocity - the time dilation is also an artefact of this;  the redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artefact of the time dilation.

Quote
but until someone can answer the above concerns without simply throwing the party line at me, then I will continue to have these ideas.
 But the proceeding is a strawman;   SR does not claim what you are saying it does.   Your other arguments boil down to an argument from personal incredulity - which again can never be answered.   Your comparison between gravitational field and the time field (what is that) is just not cogent - we measure everything by its effect on something else (nothing is known in and of itself), newtons theory of gravity postulates a force that acts at a distance (without any further explanation) einsteins general theory of relativity postulates that mass/energy distort spacetime (without any further explanation)

I have explained the Twin paradox in two ways - what do you not agree with?

This small personal bit of the mainstream will not dismiss a theory that is heuristic only (although he does get a bit peeved at being characterised as a dogmatic stick-in-the-mud repressing the nova-galileos of new theories.  But I will not accept a new theory that contradicts very well tested theories without a reasoned argument that shows where the dogma fails.

At present your argument is a mixture of strawman, personal incredulity and misinformed interpretations of relativity.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 23:29:55 by imatfaal »
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #95 on: 05/06/2011 21:59:45 »
Imatfaal,

The statement that intrigues me most is;- "The redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artifact of the time dilation."

I am interested in why you believe this to be so?
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #96 on: 06/06/2011 00:26:55 »
Due to wave-particle duality of matter, the dilation of time and of wavelength (constant speed of C) is the same, so space and time can be viewed as directly related dimensions. Someone seeing only the wave side of matter could say that only length is contracted and there is no time dilation. The thing is, both are true... You can solve it only if you find the origin..
« Last Edit: 06/06/2011 02:32:25 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #97 on: 06/06/2011 10:55:37 »
Imatfaal,

The statement that intrigues me most is;- "The redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artifact of the time dilation."

I am interested in why you believe this to be so?

I suppose my most proximal causes is that I know that doppler works at very non-newtonian speeds and other sources of wave - along with many other people, it was one of the first scientific theories explained to me (when I was 5ish making fire engine noises with the correct change in pitch my big bro was at university reading physics).   Secondly, it makes sense in a heuristic view.  Thirdly, a key test of relativity is that by either dropping the speed (or by thinking of light as infinite) you find a limit in the old newtonian equations - which it does.  And lastly, and cravenly, because it says on about page 80 of Rindler's Relativity.   
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #98 on: 06/06/2011 14:10:54 »
Simplified,

Do I take it you mean that length contraction cannot explain the difference in clock hand rotations, whereas time dilation can?

If so, then I agree.

The implication from this idea is that time dilation must be real as well as relative, because it has a real and permanent effect from one frame to another, whereas length contraction cannot be real because this does not have a permanent effect from one frame to another. Length contraction is therefore purely relative, an illusion.

Are we beginning to think the same?
I think time can be different,but it can not be relative.
I was against length contraction, but I should study mathematic first.
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #99 on: 06/06/2011 16:33:23 »
CPT ArkAngel, imatfaal,Simplified,

Yes, space and time are directly related by Lorentz.

Observing the wave side of matter, we have a choice. We can choose to believe that lengths contract or we can believe the wave impacts at increased speed and therefore SEEMS contracted. Either way the time dilation is the cause.

If you develop the Lorentz factor from the basic geometry of clock motion you reach a point where you have to choose whether or not to hold velocity constant across both frames.
If you do, you end up with the mainstream physics.
BUT, if you can accept, at least for just a moment, that the velocity in the moving frame must be greater because the clock is slower, then length contraction does not happen but velocity increase does.
Now I can hear you all screaming about the much loved length contraction, and you may have noticed that I don't necessarily believe everything I read, whatever the source. If you try this with the math, you get velocity in the moving frame approaching infinite speed as the velocity observed from the stationary frame approaches "c".
The relative limit of "c" remains intact but the speed experienced from the moving frame eventually increases to infinite speed due to the increasing time dilation. This infinite speed, is not only consistant with the time rate of zero at a relative velocity of "c", but it also clearly demonstrates WHY the finite value of "c" is the limit of relative velocity.


With the mainstream view, in the limit, we get a velocity of "c", a time rate of zero and length contraction to zero in the direction of motion only. These are all in consistant amongst themselves!
Frankly, when I hear "These are the counter intuitive effects of relativity so just accept them.", I become suspicious and this is what has driven me to explore this alternative. There are NO counter intuitive effects to swallow with this view of SR.

You may still have a problem accepting this because of the clearly observed relative effect of length contraction. All our education, experimental results and the sheer weight of consensus prevents us from even wanting to question SR at this level, but I can tell you that EITHER works mathematically and experimentally. So, it is a simple matter of choosing which one best reflects reality.

I don't know about you, but I have a problem accepting length contraction in anything but the purely relative sense, especially since it is only applicable in the direction of motion. This clearly is not a real effect.
Time dilation IS a real and proven effect of motion. Velocity increase is an indisputable result of time dilation. So, There is no contest between these options.

The mainstream is correct in that we CAN consider lengths to contract via Lorentz, but we can also explain these same effects as being due to velocity increase, if only you wanted to, or should I say, if only you were prepared to consider this option.
I have no problem at all with accepting the time dilation and the resulting velocity increase in the time dilated frame moving frame.
v = s/t, and if you dilate the "t" then v increases without any energy being applied. it's so simple.

Just don't expect me to accept length contraction as a real effect of motion. It's frankly ludicrous.

By the way, Simplified, Time is indeed relative. The mainstream also says so.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2011 17:16:00 by Ken Hughes »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #99 on: 06/06/2011 16:33:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums