The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Alternative discussion - why is the speed of light independent of inertial frames of reference?  (Read 1054 times)

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
So I understand the Michelson–Morley experiment and its result. I do not question the results of the experiment. I have no problem with Special Relativity. The result of this discovery on its surface does seem to defy common sense. It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation.
It's the wave nature of matter. Robert Close explained it well in The Other Meaning of Special Relativity. In a nutshell, we use the motion of waves to define our second and our metre, and then use them to measure the motion of waves. So we always measure the motion of waves to be the same. There's a tautology here, which Magueijo and Moffat described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507.

Note that electric and magnetic field variations are not generated or altered by each other, instead they are two aspects of the same coin, that being the electromagnetic wave. See Jefimenko's equations for something on that. Also see the Wikipedia electromagnetic radiation article and note this:

"Also, E and B far-fields in free space, which as wave solutions depend primarily on these two Maxwell equations, are in-phase with each other. This is guaranteed since the generic wave solution is first order in both space and time, and the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time".

The "electric" wave E is the spatial derivative, the "magnetic" wave B is the time derivative. To appreciate this, imagine you're in a canoe at sea with an ocean wave coming at you. The slope of your canoe relates to E, the rate of change of slope relates to B. But there's only one wave there. Note that Maxwell thought in mechanical terms, and described light as transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena. That's one transverse undulation, not two orthogonal transverse undulations.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2016 13:58:10 by JohnDuffield »


 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
It's the wave nature of matter. Robert Close explained it well in The Other Meaning of Special Relativity. In a nutshell, we use the motion of waves to define our second and our metre, and then use them to measure the motion of waves. So we always measure the motion of waves to be the same.
This is actually the opposite answer to the accepted answer in physics. Mr. Duffield is here saying that, actually, the speed of light is not the same in every reference frame and that there is, secretly, just one frame of reference where the speed of light is constant and that there is just a difference in the measurement apparatuses that are in motion compared to the measurement apparatuses that are not in motion.

While it is true that, in special relativity, there is this difference in describing measurement apparatuses in motion in a given reference frame compared to measurement apparatuses at rest relative to a given reference frame, the theory itself is that there is no one true reference frame. Someone like Robert Close, and Mr. Duffield, want you to believe that there is a one true reference frame, even though it is totally not detectable. Einstein rejected the idea that something exists in physics if it is not detectable and contemporary physics also rejects the idea that there is some secret reference frame.

Mr. Duffield is well known for his self-published book, his attempts to appear on television to promote his own work, his penchant for getting banned from message boards, and generally trying to promote his own theory in order to appear smarter than physicists who spend the time to learn the relevant mathematical and scientific details of physics.
Quote
There's a tautology here, which Magueijo and Moffat described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507.
This is a misrepresentation of the tautology that the authors describe. The authors are quite clear that the tautology is an apparent product of the commitment to relationships within the physical theory that are testable and thus falsifiable. The paper actually investigates what it means for the speed of light to vary and does so in a manner that preserves the idea that there is no secret frame of reference. It is not the first time that Mr. Duffield has misrepresented that paper.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
This is a misrepresentation of the tautology that the authors describe. The authors are quite clear that the tautology is an apparent product of the commitment to relationships within the physical theory that are testable and thus falsifiable. The paper actually investigates what it means for the speed of light to vary and does so in a manner that preserves the idea that there is no secret frame of reference. It is not the first time that Mr. Duffield has misrepresented that paper.
Certainly not the first time here because I pointed out his error to him in another thread.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What error? What other thread? I haven't misrepresented anything, and I didn't say anything about one secret reference frame. What Magueijo and Moffat said is there for all to see:

"Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is “one light-year per year”, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition."

This tautology is as I described: we use the motion of light to define our second and our metre, then we use them to measure the motion of light. Note that the Einstein digital papers are publically available too:



Also see this Baez article: Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? I stand by what I said. I stand by my attempts to educate. For some reason some people seem to object to my references to Einstein and other authors.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
So I understand the Michelson–Morley experiment and its result. I do not question the results of the experiment. I have no problem with Special Relativity. The result of this discovery on its surface does seem to defy common sense. It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation. I would like to see what everyone here has to say about this question. I have my own ideas but will not say them as I do not want to violate the rules of the forum. If it is permitted and desired I will give my idea otherwise I would really like to hear from experts as to what the currently excepted explanation is.

Einsteins solution is described in most modern physics textbooks. The alternate solution by various electrical engineering professors is that  objects shrink in the forward direction of motion. And the two sides have argued back and forth over the years. If we write simple Doppler Equations, we find that the geometric mean of the Doppler is identical with Einstein. Thus for orbital type motion we get the same answers for the timing of the clock. Surely Einsteins solution violates our senses. Yet for orbital motion since we get the same answers either way, it does not matter if Einstein is right or wrong.  The third alternative is that photonic energy  adapts to the gravitational fields thus light from the sun jumps along the suns gravitational field and eventually far from the earth becomes part of the Earths field. Thus other than a color change the incoming light is basically at the speed C with respect to our Earth.
  Einsteins special relativity has the clock paradox problem and therefore it is false. The Doppler answers have no clock paradox problem and therefore the electrical engineering professors have a better answer but the adaptable photon is the best answer as far as I am concerned.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline Scott Mayers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
To the OP and others,

I think this question is valid, especially in attempting to determine what specific interpretation is meant. I completely understand Einstein's Special Relativity but am not sure if others have sold it to us correctly when popularizing it. The major hurdle I has was in interpreting reference frames. At first I understood this to be related to perception only. This makes complete sense and is how I re-discovered this learning from bottom up too. But when I realized that some were seeming to imply that the 'speed of any light' from any source IS moving AT one actual speed without a REAL fixed address reference (even though we can't necessarily determine this locally) I doubted this. When I heard how Einstein imagined what he would 'see' when looking into a mirror riding on a beam of light, the correct interpretation is to his original one: that he should NOT see his reflection. But the theory seemed to be asserting that he'd STILL actually be able to 'see' after all but that his time slows down.

To me, this should be still unattainable to realize AT the speed of light as one would literally be 'frozen' in time relative to themselves at that point. In fact, for this to actually be 'true', it should require that even all of one's essence as matter should be completely converted to light and be irreversible because no "vertical" information would exist for even any atoms that may have originally made up the observer. I am certain this IS the case.

Another factor is that the particular definition of light itself that is being measured in such an inertial frame MUST be that which originates IN that frame. Otherwise, the light from any other source itself is NOT the 'same'. I had a different thought experiment that explains why as follows:

Presume that we are given any electromagnetic signal that could be sent from two different worlds AT the speed of light via a movie stream of information. Let the signals of such be of the same exact show or movie lasting one hour should one be viewing it in their own frame. Then, assume a ship is in transit at a fixed inertial speed from one place (planet) to the other.

As you move away from the source, what might be an 'hour' long show would have its information stretched and so reach the ship in longer time relative to an external observer AT the same inertia as the planets. While the time of the ship would be adjusted internally to 'fit' its apparent time as an hour too watching the movie, should the signal from the other planet be 'blue shifted, its information is compressed to less than an hour moving toward it. You also are biased to the time frame that 'favors' perceiving the program from the source planet you came from. But the information coming from the opposite direction could not MATCH logically with the time in the same way. That is, your relative 'time' doesn't both slow down AND speed up in order to perceive both the forward information of the electromagnetic signals in both directions.

Thus, the actual speed of light has to be 'fixed' relative to some real absolute background and it is NOT time itself that alters, but only the perception of this locally. It is the very matter that makes you up while transiting through space that 'slows' relative to the inertia of the ship, not an absolute time. If this were not the case, the length of the beam moving towards you from the planet you are moving towards would itself be contracted in length such that it would have to 'know' your speed to adjust for it at a distance and spread out to 'fit' with the same beam from behind.

Because the signal from behind 'fits' with the ship (note, also because it had to accelerate from that source), and since the mechanism picking up the signal at the ship will match the rate it is able to also present itself on some screen for the moving observer to watch, the quality of the signal will have more resolution of information from its source and a loss of it from its destination, since the timing to translate the signal is based on the slower beam of its source.

I'm thus confused at why they abandoned the aether since this logic should account for the Michelson-Morley experiment. That is, you should EXPECT that the Michelson-Morley experiment SHOULD not be able to pick up the actual background aether because every part of the apparatus is affected in all directions. So while I understood that Einstein's explanation 'fit' to the experiment, why did they not 'go back' and accept that this explanation such that it provides a reason for why it is unmeasureable even if it should be affected, and have the aether reinstated? It seemed as though Einstein defaulted to accepting that there was no aether and WHY he interpreted 'time' as being relative, and not that the matter in space itself is what is relative along with the perception of the moving observer.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2016 12:05:15 by Scott Mayers »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
The speed of light is constant because the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. In our universe, there is a net movement of matter to energy, and not energy to matter. All the forces of nature move potential in this direction. Energy is like a terminal product that exists at the lower potential side of force; ground state.

As an analogy, the speed of light is analogous to sea level. Sea level is a common place where all the water on the surface of the earth flows. Sea level is the same no matter if the water begins in the atmosphere, clouds, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, etc. Each unique starting place or reference, will imply a different potential with sea level (red and blue shift) but sea level or C-level is always the same, for all references.

For example, at the speed of light space-time will contract to a point-instant. Gravity is a process by which matter attempts to go back to C-level. Gravity, via General relativity will cause space-time to contract in the general direction of the point-instant reference of light. This is most closely approximated with a black hole.

Even the expansion of the universe is heading back to C-level. Since the inertial universe will appears contracted to a point-instant at the speed of light, then only infinite wavelength can be seen. Wavelengths smaller that infinite will appears as a fraction of the point, which is not mathematically possible, since a point is defined as the smallest unit. The red shift is moving all photons in the general direction of infinite wavelength; heading back to C-level.

The confusion is we live on earth and it is easier to make the earth a relative ground state for the universe. Only the speed of light is the same for all.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2016 13:05:34 by puppypower »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
The speed of light is constant because the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. In our universe, there is a net movement of matter to energy, and not energy to matter. All the forces of nature move potential in this direction. Energy is like a terminal product that exists at the lower potential side of force; ground state.

As an analogy, the speed of light is analogous to sea level. Sea level is a common place where all the water on the surface of the earth flows. Sea level is the same no matter if the water begins in the atmosphere, clouds, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, etc. Each unique starting place or reference, will imply a different potential with sea level (red and blue shift) but sea level or C-level is always the same, for all references.

For example, at the speed of light space-time will contract to a point-instant. Gravity is a process by which matter attempts to go back to C-level. Gravity, via General relativity will cause space-time to contract in the general direction of the point-instant reference of light. This is most closely approximated with a black hole.

Even the expansion of the universe is heading back to C-level. Since the inertial universe will appears contracted to a point-instant at the speed of light, then only infinite wavelength can be seen. Wavelengths smaller that infinite will appears as a fraction of the point, which is not mathematically possible, since a point is defined as the smallest unit. The red shift is moving all photons in the general direction of infinite wavelength; heading back to C-level.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2016 13:11:07 by puppypower »
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I'm thus confused at why they abandoned the aether since this logic should account for the Michelson-Morley experiment. That is, you should EXPECT that the Michelson-Morley experiment SHOULD not be able to pick up the actual background aether because every part of the apparatus is affected in all directions...
Einstein said the luminiferous aether was unnecessary in 1905, but in 1920 he was talking about space as the aether of general relativity, see the Einstein digital papers.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What error? What other thread? I haven't misrepresented anything, and I didn't say anything about one secret reference frame. What Magueijo and Moffat said is there for all to see:

"Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is “one light-year per year”, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition."

This tautology is as I described: we use the motion of light to define our second and our metre, then we use them to measure the motion of light.
Please note the tactic that Mr. Duffield just used here, as he does in so many places: quotation mining, also known as cherry-picking a quotation. Mr. Duffield chose where to stop quoting that paper. If one were to keep reading from the sentence where Mr. Duffield stopped quoting, one would find a much more nuanced description of what it means to have a physical constant. Reading the rest of the paper, one would find that the authors are explaining what it means to have a different value for that constant while still denying the position of Mr. Close and Mr. Duffield that there is a secret true frame of reference.
Quote
Note that the Einstein digital papers are publically available too:
Mr. Duffield is also fond of producing this same Einstein quotation over and over again, despite the fact that it doesn't support Mr. Close and Mr. Duffield's position of a secret true reference frame. The context of almost complete freedom of systems of coordinates makes General Relativity complex to understand, thus there is a lot of statements that can be taken out of context. This is especially true of the early Einstein writings, where Einstein himself is sometimes mistaken about the content of his theory and especially when expressed in simple language.
Quote
Also see this Baez article: Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? I stand by what I said. I stand by my attempts to educate. For some reason some people seem to object to my references to Einstein and other authors.
I too recommend that people read that Baez article. However, it also provides no support to the claims of Mr. Close and Mr. Duffield that there is one secret true reference frame.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
  Einsteins special relativity has the clock paradox problem and therefore it is false. The Doppler answers have no clock paradox problem and therefore the electrical engineering professors have a better answer but the adaptable photon is the best answer as far as I am concerned.
No, Special Relativity has no paradoxes. There are cranks who misunderstand the nature of SR and cannot do the math properly and so do not understand how the theory works. Note that without changing rates of time, one cannot get the physics to work out properly. Thus even those theories with a secret true reference frame also have the same "paradoxes" as Special Relativity or they fail to match our observations.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
I'm thus confused at why they abandoned the aether since this logic should account for the Michelson-Morley experiment. That is, you should EXPECT that the Michelson-Morley experiment SHOULD not be able to pick up the actual background aether because every part of the apparatus is affected in all directions...
Einstein said the luminiferous aether was unnecessary in 1905, but in 1920 he was talking about space as the aether of general relativity, see the Einstein digital papers.
Many people have pointed out to Mr. Duffield that Einstein is explicitly denying the "luminiferous aether" and means something entirely different and metaphorical by "aether" in his talk. Einstein also adopts the very same mathematical framework for General Relativity that Mr. Duffield denies in that very same talk. Those interested in General Relativity should perhaps ignore Mr. Duffield and read a book like "Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford Will. (Spoiler: Einstein was right.)
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Please note the tactic that Mr. Duffield just used here, as he does in so many places: quotation mining, also known as cherry-picking a quotation...
This guy is a stalker and a troll. I don't quote-mine, I educate. For example, see this Wikipedia article:

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[9]"
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Please note the tactic that Mr. Duffield just used here, as he does in so many places: quotation mining, also known as cherry-picking a quotation...
This guy is a stalker and a troll. I don't quote-mine, I educate.
We can all see that you just did quote-mine, we can all read the full document for yourself. Saying something now that is obviously untrue is not helping anyone.
Quote
For example, see this Wikipedia article:

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[9]"
Congratulations, you found somebody with a quotation that looks, superficially, like it agrees with you. Other people who read Laughlin's work will note that that he does not believe, as you and Mr. Close do, that there is a secret true reference frame. So this talk of an "ether" is separate from the topic of this thread.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
  Einsteins special relativity has the clock paradox problem and therefore it is false. The Doppler answers have no clock paradox problem and therefore the electrical engineering professors have a better answer but the adaptable photon is the best answer as far as I am concerned.
No, Special Relativity has no paradoxes. There are cranks who misunderstand the nature of SR and cannot do the math properly and so do not understand how the theory works. Note that without changing rates of time, one cannot get the physics to work out properly. Thus even those theories with a secret true reference frame also have the same "paradoxes" as Special Relativity or they fail to match our observations.
  When I say false I mean it is not absolutely true. Einsteins answers are excellent because they are a geometric mean solution. Alternate solutions produce the same results. Are their better solutions? The classified MIT studies on the forward and rearward Doppler masses were added to Einsteins equations. Unfortunately as the Authors pointed out the measurements were in the error band range. However it was self evident to me 50 years ago that the authors were correct. Yet I like the simple Doppler Equations rather than the more complex MIT equations.
   As I see it the independent references are the gravitational fields themselves. The Earth is a reference. the sun is a reference. A spaceship in outer space is not an independent reference. Photons from the sun travel at C with respect to the sun. Once they pass through the gravitational balance point, they become part of the Earths reference. Thus they appear to travel at C relative to the Earth. depending upon the relative motion of the sun and Earth the photons will either turn red or blue. thus the difference in speed produced differences in energy level of the photons.
   
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
To the OP and others,

I think this question is valid, especially in attempting to determine what specific interpretation is meant. I completely understand Einstein's Special Relativity but am not sure if others have sold it to us correctly when popularizing it. The major hurdle I has was in interpreting reference frames. perception of the moving observer.
The big problem is that a reference frame is associated with a gravitational field. the Earth itself has a reference frame. The sun has a reference frame. A spaceship at the null point between earth and sun has no reference frame. Einstein did a math thing. It was fun but quite wrong. Photons from the sun are part of the suns gravitational field and when they reach the near the earth they become part of the Earths reference frame. The m/m experiment is totally meaningless since the instruments were within the Earths reference frame. This error has persisted for one hundred years and gives people the wrong impression of space and time.
 

Offline Scott Mayers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
The speed of light is constant because the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. In our universe, there is a net movement of matter to energy, and not energy to matter. All the forces of nature move potential in this direction. Energy is like a terminal product that exists at the lower potential side of force; ground state.

As an analogy, the speed of light is analogous to sea level. Sea level is a common place where all the water on the surface of the earth flows. Sea level is the same no matter if the water begins in the atmosphere, clouds, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, etc. Each unique starting place or reference, will imply a different potential with sea level (red and blue shift) but sea level or C-level is always the same, for all references.

For example, at the speed of light space-time will contract to a point-instant. Gravity is a process by which matter attempts to go back to C-level. Gravity, via General relativity will cause space-time to contract in the general direction of the point-instant reference of light. This is most closely approximated with a black hole.

Even the expansion of the universe is heading back to C-level. Since the inertial universe will appears contracted to a point-instant at the speed of light, then only infinite wavelength can be seen. Wavelengths smaller that infinite will appears as a fraction of the point, which is not mathematically possible, since a point is defined as the smallest unit. The red shift is moving all photons in the general direction of infinite wavelength; heading back to C-level.

The confusion is we live on earth and it is easier to make the earth a relative ground state for the universe. Only the speed of light is the same for all.
I have to first apologize for the late responses now and to what may follow. Normally all forums I sign up to send notice to let me know of new responses BY DEFAULT. I can't remember if I checked the "Notify me of replies" I see below or not. But some sites don't seem to respond even when I have certainly checked it originally.

On topic, are you responding to me or to someone prior? I'll assume you are to which my response relates to the point about the "ground state". If a 'ground state' of SPEED counts, since a speed is necessarily measured in both time as well as space, it has to be measured by some COMMON standard of these. If the 'distance' part of the speed is fixed, the distance in that INERTIAL frame must be measured by a standard that is either uniform throughout or is different in different frames. If you measure the distance of a meter, for instance, in some initial frame, like the Earth, that meter has to remain the same of the perception of those things moving in different inertial frames FROM that perspective. We understand that such things as a metered rod when accelerated from our frame becomes shorter (positive acceleration, that is). But while we know that the person in the same frame would measure that same meter in the same 'way' and it should agree, to the slower inertial frame, that meter is no longer a meter. Why would we say that it contracts otherwise?

Similar with time. If we agree that time in the faster inertial frame is slower from the initial time of the source prior to acceleration, the perception of the one IN the faster frame will perceive (measure) the time based on their own biology moving through that AS 'equal'. Yet we know that 'time' contracts in that frame from a relative slower position. If time and space are out of sync then the measures IN each inertial frame would necessarily be different. But this CONTRADICTS the assumption that TIME itself changes. Even SPACE itself cannot change for the same reason.

Therefore, time NOR space actually alters but only the relative perception of it alone.

To extend this fact, it must mean that to something moving relatively faster of one perspective, if time or space  distinctly changed without an ability to distinguish any difference, then even some ship moving at the speed of light should be possible relative to ANY observer and there would be NO actual fixed 'speed'.

The reality is that if one should 'speed' up, there is one real way you could determine the difference: HOW LONG YOU SEEM TO LIVE. To one moving quicker, their life would also be shortened directly proportional to their increased speed. You couldn't, for instance, have the paradox of the twins because even if time slowed down of the twin moving through space quickly (even ignoring acceleration and deceleration), the twin moving rapidly would have both a shorter lifer relative to itself and be disintegrated to nothing by the time it arrived back home (assuming the long distance trip relative to the slower speed frame).
 

Offline Scott Mayers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
I'm thus confused at why they abandoned the aether since this logic should account for the Michelson-Morley experiment. That is, you should EXPECT that the Michelson-Morley experiment SHOULD not be able to pick up the actual background aether because every part of the apparatus is affected in all directions...
Einstein said the luminiferous aether was unnecessary in 1905, but in 1920 he was talking about space as the aether of general relativity, see the [gives a link I am denied to requote?].
Thankyou for the link.

Space, as I understood the readings of 'what' the aether meant, ALWAYS assumed to be equated as space and vice versa. Adding "luminiferous" makes those speaking of "aether" without that adjective confuses the issue. We are taught that both are false with or without that adjective. It seems more that consideration to reintroduce that adjective without careful distinction only demonstrates a 360 to what we all understand is the same by begging it to be different when new information confirms it as valid through QM. This is dishonest as it appears as a transference technique to grant credit to past scientific conclusions as well as future ones that discredit the old by a smokescreen of wording.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
It is an interesting discussion. The fact is SR and GR combined has yet to be contradicted. To keep an Euclidean space, an absolute preferred frame in space has to be demonstrated. Einstein understood the necessity of some kind of preferred frame to explain how energy can be related in an ordered manner. But he didn't had a clue of what it was and he didn't think of a possible preferred frame in space...

The first clue I found is the non rotating frame. What is the Earth non rotating frame and how is it related to matter in the universe and other non rotating frames? The only answer I could find is that it is probably a time frame...
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
  I finished my study of relativity which I put in my new book "Relativity and the Dot-wave Theory". The theory basically finds the fundamental energy level of the electric and gravitational fields. So my understanding of Einstein's work has changed since my last comment. It was good rereading Einstein's 1920 book "Relativity" and seeing the various discussions.
   It is clear to me now that Einstein's work is basically very good but that frames of reference are dependent upon the primary gravitational field. Upon this Earth the Earths field is primary. Thus everything must relate to this field first and to other fields second. When near the sun everything depends upon the sun's field.
   The question of the speed of light being independent of ones frame of reference is always true as long as the reference is the primary gravitational field. Thus instead of simple relativity we must use conditional relativity. With that, the clock paradox problem goes away.
   I call the world of light, the light speed C universe. In this electromagnetic/gravitational field universe, everything travels at C. The MM experiment is looking at the world of C. It doesn't matter whether one is moving toward the light or away from the light. It is not possible for the instrument to detect any difference.
   Our world is a world where things move at speeds near zero to speeds of C. But we do not live in the world of C.
   We look at the far stars and they appear to be moving quite fast. Yet relative to the world of C, they are moving as slow as we are. So the absolute speed relative to us means nothing to them. All they care about it that they are moving slowly relative to the world of C.
   So we try to figure out how things behave relative to our ruler and our clock. Einstein entered the world of C in his mind. And he found two important things.
Velocity = meters/second = C for world of C.
Meters x Seconds = Constant for any particular particle
Thus LT = LoTo  as per Einsteins equations
   This is an important law of the world of C. He found the governing equations for the variation of length and time with velocity. As length shrinks time dilates and vice versa.
  So when we enter the world of the fields the answers change. And the speed of light is always the same everywhere we are and no matter how fast we are going or what direction we are traveling. And this is quite amazing to us. It is a different world for sure.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Online LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
For me there is no reference for light. Mass is something that turns around itself at speed of light if you move in translation your internal clock decreases more and more and the energy increases because the translation deforms the shape of a capacitor. The matter is a capacitor. For the light, there is no rotation around itself. What you called a reference is for me a charge of a capacitor. When an object moves in translation at V1 it is charged at C1, when it moves at V2 it is charged of C2. That's all. I take the electrostatic charge but I'm not sure maybe it is a magnetic charge. And the light it is not affected by that charge. For me it is possible to change the velocity by changing the shape of the internal matter. For me, your question is like :  why is the speed of light independent of the charge of the capacitor ?  You can place a LED on a capacitor, charged or not the speed of light is the same.

Mass, object = turn around itself
Light = move in straight line (with an oscillation E,M)

The light:



Something with a mass:

« Last Edit: 24/10/2016 15:31:50 by LB7 »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Wow all this confusion and quoting without the mechanical understanding of relativity. Remember Einstein's Relativity is based on postulates while you are all arguing mechanics. What does the relativity mathematics mean mechanically? Can you have math mean anything without the mechanical basis? I will have to insist that the Ether is the mechanics of Relativity. Any other basis would be the magic of non existence. Einstein suggested that you could not consider the Ether as having motion. Vector motion would violate Relativity so in a sense that should be correct. But he never considered a ether motion that might cause relativity. A particle spin ether of c. From this very postulate Relativity can be described mechanically. The speed of c spin is constant (dark energy) but the distance between the particles of c (dark mass) are affected by macro mass causing dilation of space. There is no fixed frame of distance. Time is related to the distance the electron travels through space. The more dilated the space the longer distance electrons have to travel in GR. The further the electrons travel the larger the measuring stick becomes. So you measure a longer distance with a longer measuring stick and the result is the same measurement of speed of light in every frame. The stick actually becomes physically larger in GR. There is an equivalency to SR with geometry. The measuring stick appears longer in SR because of the finite speed of light. Both can be explained by using Euclidean geometry. c is constant, distance is not. While it is physical for GR it is a visual equivalency for SR. What an observer views visually is not an exact representation of the physical object in motion. Since all physical things are in motion our view is changed while the physical object stays the same.

Lets take a ship going half the speed of light. Relativity postulate light being independent of the frame. The Doppler effect on light created by the ship changes the angle of light by 30 degrees. This is a 30,60,90 triangle geometrically. An observer physically perpendicular to the ship does not view the ship because the light is just reaching the parallel position to the observer 30 degrees behind the perpendicular observer at rest along the hypotenuse. The Doppler angled the light being seen at 30 degrees so the observer views the perpendicular position of the ship like he would at the 30 degree angle of view and contracted. the view is contracted not the physical object. Cos 30 = 0.866025. The Lorentz contraction at half the speed of light is 0.866025. So geometry and relativity produce the same view.

All of the answers are in Relativity mathematics. Your confusion is in the mechanics interpretation. No Ether represents no mechanics.

The fixed clock speed between the Earth and the sun would be the ratios of mass to distance if there were no other bodies of mass in the universe. The dilation reduction from the sun is a gradient to the fastest tick rate (least dilated position) between them than a gradient to the earth slowing the tick rate by increased dilation to the Earth begins.

Mechanical relativity opens up a clearer understanding into the observations of relativity. Ether mechanics or magical relativity. Your choice.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"It's the wave nature of matter. Robert Close explained it well in The Other Meaning of Special Relativity. In a nutshell, we use the motion of waves to define our second and our metre, and then use them to measure the motion of waves. So we always measure the motion of waves to be the same."

Heh :)

Let's see. taken out of context, as I haven't read the book referred to, it states that you can't know what speed a 'second', (length of) a meter, or light has? That is if I read it correctly?

Well, you can, locally measured. because we build physics from our ideas of constants. And a meter will then be a meter, and a second will be a second, locally measured. It's perfectly correct to notice that the rest of physics are built on those same ideas of local measurements. And the computer you write on support those ideas, as does all technology and knowledge I know of.

It is what we can agree on that builds the ideas of a logic.
=

In the beginning maybe a 'second' could have been defined to one beat of a heart? I don't know, but we looked for way of agreement, then we tested it locally, and if we could agree we had a base to build from. The Chinese did a little differently with the length measurement of a 'lie'. As I get it they defined a 'lie', from the time taken relative uphill or downhill (so a Lie becomes 'longer' uphill than downhill). In modern terms you might say that they saw this stretch of length as a result of the energy expended. But it's still a logic, and we could use it, although we prefer constants.
==

I probably should add that if we had found a 'universal, globally set reference frame' then that would be what we would use, and so not related to locally defined speeds, mass, 'energy', etc.  But reality doesn't agree with that one.


« Last Edit: 24/10/2016 16:18:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
     JohnDuffield was only claiming a ratio which is the only thing relativity does. By claiming the ratio he was accused of creating a fixed frame. He denied the accusation correctly. His claim was following the observed measurements of Relativity. To accuse him of that is to accuse Relativity of having a fixed frame. An Ether to many is the equivalent of claiming a fixed frame. All Relativity claims is a fixed ratio, same as John claimed. It was unfair to accuse him of a fixed frame mentality.

  It is difficult to show mechanical cause for Relativity and many shrink at the suggestion. Even to the point of dragging others down for their attempt. They are the ones satisfied with magic for the reasons of relativity. I am not and never have been.

We have to ask what are the waves? what is their physical base?  No base is the same as magic

Relativity never claims the speed of light is the same in every frame only the measurement of the speed of light  is the same in every frame. Why? Its mechanics or magic. Main stream does not allow tools (an ether) to create relativity so will always stay on the magic side of relativity. The box does not include gravity, magnetism, weak or strong force. Quantum mechanics is the cause of relativity. Quantum mechanics starts with c.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"Relativity never claims the speed of light is the same in every frame". Well, under some specified conditions, not involving accelerations/decelerations it actually define it. When it comes to accelerations/decelerations you can still argue that the discrepancy you measure (from 'c') is a result of 'gravity', locally measured. There are two sets of relativity, one being SR, the other involving gravity (GR). And using SR 'c' is a constant.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length