Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: GoC on 02/05/2017 11:54:06

Title: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 02/05/2017 11:54:06
David to continue our conversation on our own thread from the "invariant speed of light" topic.

SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular. You claim science believes time is a dimension. That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

GR is a dilation of Aether spin c particles. So energy is diluted and the wave created has a lower frequency. mass is expanded physically in GR. Mass is expanded visually in SR. That is the equivalence between GR and SR where g=a.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/05/2017 22:17:04
SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular.

That needs a diagram. I can't see how light chasing a mirror has to hit it at 30 degrees.

Quote
You claim science believes time is a dimension.

I do no such thing. SR is a model which uses a time dimension. Anything that has no time dimension is not SR. Your model, for example, is not SR, but a rival theory of relativity.

Quote
That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?

Time in SR is a dimension. In your theory, it isn't, so in discussing your model it would be wrong to refer to your model's kind of time as a dimension, just as in LET (Lorentz Ether Theory - the theory which I rate the highest) time isn't a dimension.

Quote
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

Again that needs a diagram before anyone will be able to make sense of it.

From the other thread:-

Quote
Quote
You said there is no time dimension, so how do you now have a time dimension that's a dimension of size?
Aether Particles spin and Mass dilates the Aether particles so energy density decreases in the presents of mass. The measuring stick increases in size to measure a different mile than less dilated mass. You always measure the same speed of light in both GR dilation and SR visual increase in length. The hypotenuse of SR and the dilation of GR has equivalence in Euclidean space.

There is no visual increase in length - the opposite should occur.

Quote
2d complimentary spin on one sheet than a 90 degree at a 45 degree offset for the next sheet. Axils cannot be the same between sheets and this allows flex. The third sheet is the same as the first. The funny thing it would look like a string vibrating. The electron moves as a rotation around a half string. Energy pushes the electron along. One atom dilates space energy. The electron moves out of the proton at the rotation motion of the speed of light. Space becomes less dilated and the friction with energy curves the electron back to the proton where another electron moves out to cycle. There is one more negatron than positron in protons and neutrons are equal matter to antimatter electrons. Each spin state is complimentary when they pass for less resistance keeping the proton together. Gravity is mass attracted to the most dilated space of least resistance.

Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 03/05/2017 11:59:35

Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?

I think for myself and do not trust others to do my subjective interpretations. I never thought of my interpretation as a rival. Reading Einstein's papers gave me the interpretation I have about relativity.
What you want is the discussion on the reflection of light. OK. Lets look at light coming from the opposite direction of travel to the meter stick. Light hits the front of the stick while the stick is going half the speed of light. The light travels down the stick while the back of the stick moves towards the light for reflection. So the light reflects off of 2/3rds of the stick. So the contraction in this case is 2/3rds length but remains physically 1 meter long. Because of the finite speed of a photon (whatever you believe to be a photon) non can move fast enough to cover the whole meter stick.

Now lets look at light following that same stick. Light reaches the back of the meter stick. The front is still moving forward. The reflective light follows the meter stick for two whole lengths of the stick. So the meter stick becomes two meters long for the view while the meter stick is only one meter long.

Clocks oriented in any angle to vector velocity will tick at the same rate. Both mechanical (electrons) and light clocks. So you need to be more specific in what you are asking. There is no physical contraction in SR. Where would you get such an idea? 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/05/2017 18:25:32
If you don't have a proper way of handling length-contraction, your theory is dead in the water - it cannot simply be written off as a visual effect.

Imagine a large blue circular ring in space, neither moving nor rotating. Around this ring, we will place a second ring made from eight rectangular objects, each touching the one ahead and the one behind. The rectangles are either yellow or red (four of each colour), alternating between one colour and the other as you look from one rectangle to the next around the ring. I will point you to a diagram that's very similar to this in a moment, but it has a couple of differences, one of which is that the rectangles aren't stationary in the diagram. So, to make it more like the diagram, we now have to move the ring of yellow and red triangles around the blue ring, speeding them up until they're all moving at 86.7%c around the blue ring, thereby length-contracting them to half their rest length. We now see that the length-contraction is actual - there are now such big gaps between the rectangles that we could fit twice as many rectangles into the same space. If the length-contraction was just an illusion, each rectangle would continue to touch the one ahead and the one behind it, but that doesn't happen in the real universe - they really do contract to half their rest length at 0.867c.

Here's the diagram. When you get there you'll need to click on the "Load example objects" button, then type "d" to load the fourth set of example objects, then the Return key to make them appear. http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/ref-frame-camera.htm

You should now see the blue ring with the eight rectangles around its edge (although these items are only shown using a few dots here and there, the rectangles only having four dots each to mark the corners - I had to draw them this way due to the severe limitations of JavaScript (the more dots that I use, the slower the program runs, so it has to be kept minimal). You should imagine the blue ring as a complete ring - don't pay any attention to the distance between the blue dots round the circumference of that ring as I simply placed a few wherever it was easiest to calculate their positions).

There's another difference with the diagram though, because the program hasn't been designed to allow objects to follow curved paths, so when you run it by pressing the "s" key, the rectangles all move on tangents to the blue ring instead, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that if they were to go round the blue ring instead, they would be length-contracted to the same extent. Assuming you're accessing this on a proper computer with a keyboard, if you press "d" you can change their direction of travel, and pressing "s" toggles between moving them and freezing the action. (If you're using a tablet, hopefully the buttons will serve the same job, but that will involve scrolling up to them and then going back down to see the action.)

To see the length of one of the rectangles without length-contraction acting on it, you can switch to a frame of reference in which it's stationary. Different frames have been assigned to number keys, so if you press "1" you get the original frame, while "2" and "3" take you to other frames where in each case one of the red rectangles will be stationary, except that the "camera" always follows the blue ring to keep it central, so the stationary rectangle will move across the screen. (If you don't have a keyboard, you'll have to use the "Set Frame velocity" button instead, typing in values such as 0.866 for X and 0 for Y.)

All of that should give you an idea of what your theory needs to account for if it's to match up with what the universe does. In the LET model, the length-contraction is absolutely real. In the SR model, the length contraction is real for the frame of reference chosen, but some of its actual length has been hidden by a trick that uses the time dimension. LET can fit 16 of those rectangles into the space around the blue ring if they are all moving at 0.866c, and each of those rectangles would be touching the one ahead and the one behind. SR can also fit 16 of those rectangles around the blue ring by playing games with the timing as to where the back end of each rectangle is relative to the front end, and that's only possible with a Spacetime model (with a time dimension). Your theory doesn't have a time dimension, so if it doesn't have length-contraction either, you've got a major problem as the eight rectangles will remain in contact with each other at all speeds of travel around the blue ring.

Given that your theory can't handle that, I have to wonder what else it can't handle. You need to study relativity in a lot more detail to find out what the universe requires a theory to account for, and then you need to study SR in sufficient depth to understand what it asserts. As it stands, you keep defending SR on the basis that your theory (which doesn't fit the facts) has some things in common with SR, but you've completely failed to notice the chasm of incompatibility between SR and your own theory.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 04/05/2017 11:57:54
David

   We view things differently. The subjective view of contraction being real has no real basis in main streams view of nothing in space for resistance to mass. Your model and math was chosen for contraction. In my model there is no contraction physically in SR. But there is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.

There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction. The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light. The light reflection follows the 30 degree angle. Cos 30 = 0.866025 and this is the percentage 86.6% of a second at rest. The 30 degree angle contracts the view to 86.6% of its visual length. Simple Euclidean geometry. The subjective view of perpendicular is impossible following relativity postulates in Euclidian space.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 04/05/2017 19:33:22
Quote
Your model and math was chosen for contraction. In my model there is no contraction physically in SR.

You aren't doing SR - you're doing something radically different, and it fails to describe the real universe. Any model that is meant to match up to the real universe has to be able to handle that contraction.

Quote
But there is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.

What the reference frame camera program shows is the positions of all objects at a single moment of time according to the clock of a selected frame of reference, but there's nothing wrong with that - it represents what must actually be happening in the real universe rather than giving a picture distorted by communication delays. A model that can handle objects contracting to half their rest length at 0.866c as they circle a ring such that twice as many can fit in the same space as the can at rest is a model that matches up to the real universe, whereas a model that can't handle that does not. The first thing that you should be trying to account for with your model is MMX. Look at the first two interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html again to see what happens if you don't length-contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it's only in the second version that you can get the null result that the real experiment generates.

Quote
There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction.

If all the action is taking place on a plane that's set perpendicular to the direction you're looking in, the further away you are from that action, the closer your view gets to the "God view" (which is the view used in the interactive diagrams and simulations). Viewed from far enough away, the difference between what you see and the "God view" becomes so small as to become irrelevant, the Doppler effect being as good as removed from it. You don't have to go to such extremes though as you can take photographs of the action from close to with each pixel right up against whatever it's photographing, which is the idea that my reference frame camera is based on - you just have to synchronise all the pixel clocks for a specific frame of reference and you are taking "God view" pictures.

Quote
The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

The Doppler effect is something that can be corrected for to provide the "God view", so it isn't the issue you imagine it to be - it merely complicates the calculations when you're trying to view things from unfavourable locations. It's a massive mistake to imagine that by viewing things from unfavourable positions you can avoid the need for length-contraction in a theory.

Quote
Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light.

When you say perpendicular, do you actually mean parallel? What you're describing though sounds very similar to the interactive diagrams I've used for the MMX, so if you can't produce diagrams of your own, why not just refer to mine and switch the numbers around to match (I use a speed of 0.867c instead of 0.5c, leading to 60 degree angles where you have 30 and 30 where you have 60, and where I have length-contraction to 0.5, you should have it to 0.867).

The big issue for you to deal with first though is the length-contraction which you claim not to need, so that means your model fits the first of the two interactive diagrams (which doesn't match up to the real universe) rather than the second interactive diagram (which SR and LET both match up to). What is your fix for this? Do you deny the null result of MMX or do you want to maintain that the length-contraction is imaginary and that the Doppler effect has a role in producing the null result instead? The Doppler effect can confuse things where one-way trips are involved, but the MMX uses light on round trips where they go from one mirror to another and back again, and if you don't length-contract an arm that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, it must take longer for light to complete the round trip on that path than it takes on the other arm, which means there shouldn't be a null result - the Doppler effect has no impact on the result of this experiment whatsoever.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 05/05/2017 11:59:09
You aren't doing SR - you're doing something radically different, and it fails to describe the real universe. Any model that is meant to match up to the real universe has to be able to handle that contraction.
Of course. But it is not physical contraction only visual because of the finite speed of light. We can never view an object where it resides in space. There is no perpendicular view only an angle different from perpendicular. It is the angle of view that causes contraction of view. I am beginning to understand your subjective training in relativity. Your belief in contraction as physical is not a Euclidean understanding. I can explain why its only visual using plane geometry. A physical contraction is impossible in relativity postulates. The postulate light being independent of the source contracts the view by angle. If there is also a physical contraction it would not follow observations.

There is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.
Quote
What the reference frame camera program shows is the positions of all objects at a single moment of time according to the clock of a selected frame of reference, but there's nothing wrong with that - it represents what must actually be happening in the real universe rather than giving a picture distorted by communication delays. A model that can handle objects contracting to half their rest length at 0.866c as they circle a ring such that twice as many can fit in the same space as the can at rest is a model that matches up to the real universe, whereas a model that can't handle that does not. The first thing that you should be trying to account for with your model is MMX. Look at the first two interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html again to see what happens if you don't length-contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it's only in the second version that you can get the null result that the real experiment generates.
There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction.

Quote
If all the action is taking place on a plane that's set perpendicular to the direction you're looking in, the further away you are from that action, the closer your view gets to the "God view" (which is the view used in the interactive diagrams and simulations). Viewed from far enough away, the difference between what you see and the "God view" becomes so small as to become irrelevant, the Doppler effect being as good as removed from it. You don't have to go to such extremes though as you can take photographs of the action from close to with each pixel right up against whatever it's photographing, which is the idea that my reference frame camera is based on - you just have to synchronise all the pixel clocks for a specific frame of reference and you are taking "God view" pictures.

The God's view you are referring to is the real position of an object which in relativistic view of finite speed of light is impossible. Your program cannot show a view other than position being the same as the view as perpendicular in the same frame. The same frame does not have a perpendicular view In my SR following the postulates properly.

The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.
Quote
The Doppler effect is something that can be corrected for to provide the "God view", so it isn't the issue you imagine it to be - it merely complicates the calculations when you're trying to view things from unfavourable locations. It's a massive mistake to imagine that by viewing things from unfavourable positions you can avoid the need for length-contraction in a theory.
No, God's view allows a perpendicular view the relativity postulates do not. This is a simple issue. What is the problem?

Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light.
Quote
When you say perpendicular, do you actually mean parallel? What you're describing though sounds very similar to the interactive diagrams I've used for the MMX, so if you can't produce diagrams of your own, why not just refer to mine and switch the numbers around to match (I use a speed of 0.867c instead of 0.5c, leading to 60 degree angles where you have 30 and 30 where you have 60, and where I have length-contraction to 0.5, you should have it to 0.867).
Half the speed of light is simple to understand the hypotenuse is the angle between parallel mirrors that light takes through space. ).866 causes a clock to tick at half the tick rate of an observer at rest. Got to go to work

Quote
The big issue for you to deal with first though is the length-contraction which you claim not to need,
Not true it is a visual length contraction. The reason is simple Euclidean plane Geometry and relativity. There is no perpendicular view even in the same frame. The view is a different angle that cause a contraction of view.

Quote
so that means your model fits the first of the two interactive diagrams (which doesn't match up to the real universe) rather than the second interactive diagram (which SR and LET both match up to). What is your fix for this?
Show you relativity postulates cause contraction of view and if you contracted them a second time physically they would no longer represent the world view.

Quote
Do you deny the null result of MMX or do you want to maintain that the length-contraction is imaginary and that the Doppler effect has a role in producing the null result instead?
The Doppler only sets the angle of view. What you believe to be perpendicular when you set the mirrors are self adjusting when you test the angle with light. Of course you get a null result. The two way distance for light with velocity in any direction will always be the same in Euclidean Space. It was main streams expectation of the experiment where light would be affected by direction that was incorrect. Its the same as clocks tick the same in any angle to velocity.
Quote
The Doppler effect can confuse things where one-way trips are involved, but the MMX uses light on round trips where they go from one mirror to another and back again, and if you don't length-contract an arm that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, it must take longer for light to complete the round trip on that path than it takes on the other arm, which means there shouldn't be a null result - the Doppler effect has no impact on the result of this experiment whatsoever.
You are correct about what should be with your understanding of no contraction. That is not my understanding. The Doppler has little affect in the clock. It is the angle of light with vector velocity that slows the clock using light as independent of the source. Why do you have a block there?

You have to unlearn your subjective interpretation to follow relativity and the finite speed of light by the angles created with velocity changing the angle of view.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/05/2017 18:53:32
But it is not physical contraction only visual because of the finite speed of light. We can never view an object where it resides in space. There is no perpendicular view only an angle different from perpendicular. It is the angle of view that causes contraction of view.

As I've already told you, the further away you view the action from (if it's happening on a plane perpendicular to the direction you're looking at it from), the closer you get to seeing the "God view", and you can easily get to the point where you see something so close to the "God view" that you can't measure the difference between the two. I have also pointed out to you that when things form a ring that's going round in a circle, they contract in length and allow more objects to be fitted into that ring, so it is not something you can write off as just a visual effect - the contraction is actual. I have also pointed out to you that MMX can't produce a null result without actual contraction.

Quote
I am beginning to understand your subjective training in relativity.

I very much doubt that.

Quote
Your belief in contraction as physical is not a Euclidean understanding. I can explain why its only visual using plane geometry. A physical contraction is impossible in relativity postulates. The postulate light being independent of the source contracts the view by angle. If there is also a physical contraction it would not follow observations.

That is not an adequate explanation, indicating a failure of understanding. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and watch the red blobs of light moving across the screen. Click the "Hide" button and watch the speed of the dots carefully - they travel at the same speed across the screen throughout (ignoring the times when they're stuck in the laser or detector at the start and finish of the experiment). In the first of these interactive diagrams we can see very clearly what happens if you don't contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it takes longer to complete the round trip along that arm than the light takes to do the round trip on the other arm, and that is not a null result. It is only when actual length-contraction is introduced that we get the null result. If you were viewing the action from close to with the Doppler effect warping the picture, you would see something very different from the "God view" with the lengths being harder to measure, but if you were viewing from a long way off, the Doppler effect would diminish and the view would get closer and closer to the "God view" as you look from further away, revealing the length-contraction clearly, but even if you were viewing from close to, you could adjust your measurements to take it into account in order to calculate the actual lengths, at which point you would produce measurements that show up the length contraction.

The most important thing for you to understand here though is this: if you still refuse to accept that there is length-contraction involved in this, you need light to complete both round trips in the same length of time, and that requires your light to exceed the speed of light when moving along the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus. Until you understand this, you haven't grasped the most fundamental issue in relativity. The contraction cannot be explained away as a visual effect.

Quote
There is a visual contraction by angle of view.

If you're observing an object moving away from you, there is a visual contraction caused by the delay in seeing the leading end of the object compared with the trailing end, but if you're observing that object moving towards you, there's a visual lengthening caused by the delay in seeing the trailing end compared with the leading end. If you average these out, you get the true length, and that will show up the actual length-contraction of the object. Your misunderstanding of relativity comes from your assumption that the first sentence of this paragraph is the explanation for length-contraction, but it has nothing to do with it - it is a separate visual contraction which has nothing to do with relativity.

Quote
The God's view you are referring to is the real position of an object which in relativistic view of finite speed of light is impossible.

The "God view" represents what the universe must actually be doing rather than what we see with distortions caused by communication delays, so it is a better representation than the views we see. But as I've already said, we can calculate the "God view" from our direct view, and if we view from far away we can see something that would in a photo look identical to a "God view" photo, the differences being too small to show up once you're beyond a certain distance (related to the photo resolution).

Quote
Your program cannot show a view other than position being the same as the view as perpendicular in the same frame. The same frame does not have a perpendicular view In my SR following the postulates properly.

If I programmed it to show the scene from a finite distance far enough away from the action, it would display everything exactly the same way it does now (because the communication distances between the objcets being viewed and the camera would be near identical - you should do a little maths on this to check how small the differences are and to see how they tend towards zero as you move the camera further away), so you need to abandon your failed argument.

If I had time to write a new version of the program to show a close-up view in which delays have a role, all that would do is hide the true lengths by showing warped representations of them. To calculate the true lengths you would then have to convert the measurements to remove the distortions from them, at which point you'd produce the "God view" measurements and discover that the length-contraction has to be actual rather than visual.

Quote
The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

The Doppler effect is something you need to eliminate from your measurements before you can start measuring the relativistic effects. How long is it going to take before the penny drops? You have completely misunderstood what relativity is about because you've mistaken some aspects of the Doppler effect for relativity, and you've only half understood the visual distortions even then, failing to notice that these distortions make things look longer just as often as they make things look shorter.

Quote
No, God's view allows a perpendicular view the relativity postulates do not. This is a simple issue. What is the problem?

It is indeed a simple issue - the "God view" is a representation of the actuality with all the visual distortions removed from it, and any length-contraction in the "God view" represents actual length-contraction which cannot be written off as visual distortion. Not allowing actual length-contraction either requires you to have light going faster than c or to have MMX not produce a null result, either of which takes you into a universe that isn't the one we live in.

Quote
Half the speed of light is simple to understand the hypotenuse is the angle between parallel mirrors that light takes through space. ).866 causes a clock to tick at half the tick rate of an observer at rest.

If your mirrors are set up parallel to the direction they're moving in rather than perpendicular to that direction, then your numbers make sense, but if you aren't going to provide diagrams you need to work harder to get your wording right.

Quote
Show you relativity postulates cause contraction of view and if you contracted them a second time physically they would no longer represent the world view.

But your visual contractions become visual lengthenings when viewed from the other end, averaging out at no contraction at all. When actual length-contraction is applied, the correct numbers are generated.

Quote
The Doppler only sets the angle of view. What you believe to be perpendicular when you set the mirrors are self adjusting when you test the angle with light. Of course you get a null result. The two way distance for light with velocity in any direction will always be the same in Euclidean Space. It was main streams expectation of the experiment where light would be affected by direction that was incorrect. Its the same as clocks tick the same in any angle to velocity.

If what you're doing with your mirrors is having light travel between them on a zigzag path as the mirrors move along (like the vertical arm of the MMX in my diagrams), you should generate the right numbers without needing length-contraction. If you're failing to do the same experiment though with the mirrors set up like on the horizontal arm, then you're missing the important part of the action where length-contraction has to be brought in.

Quote
The Doppler has little affect in the clock. It is the angle of light with vector velocity that slows the clock using light as independent of the source. Why do you have a block there?

Use a light clock and align it with the direction of travel of that clock through space - then you'll find that length-contracting it is essential.

Quote
You have to unlearn your subjective interpretation to follow relativity and the finite speed of light by the angles created with velocity changing the angle of view.

I can't correct your misunderstanding of relativity by breaking my understanding of it. Get some paper, a pencil, a ruler and a calculator and do some work on the idea of a light clock in which the light moves between two mirrors on a path that's aligned with the direction of travel of the light clock. If you do that correctly, you will find that actual length-contraction has to be brought up to make it tick at the same rate as a light clock set up perpendicular to it. (You shouldn't need to do that though as I've already done the work on that and pointed you to it - my interactive diagrams of the MMX cover the same ground and show you why failure to contract one of the arms produces results incompatible with our universe, although you're refusal to accept the validity of the "God view" as a representation of reality with all the visual distortions caused by delays removed is not going to do you any favours.)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/05/2017 14:03:08
We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed.

Observer affect.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/05/2017 14:05:48
David to continue our conversation on our own thread from the "invariant speed of light" topic.

SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular. You claim science believes time is a dimension. That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

GR is a dilation of Aether spin c particles. So energy is diluted and the wave created has a lower frequency. mass is expanded physically in GR. Mass is expanded visually in SR. That is the equivalence between GR and SR where g=a.
As  for the rest, the entire event you just explained happens in the present , the background of space in your entire thought is always present.
Mirrors , zig zagging c etc, all subjective garbage.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/05/2017 14:15:03
David

The subjective view of contraction being real has no real basis in main streams view of nothing in space for resistance to mass.

Correct, the distance of near angle is shorter than the distance of far angle for the light to travel.  Molecules do not compress together contracting physical length it would oblate.

The contraction in length contraction is the contraction of geometrical points not of space itself or the object in motion.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 06/05/2017 14:45:20
Quote
I can't correct your misunderstanding of relativity by breaking my understanding of it.
So you judge the lack of understanding is in my court. That fine. I understand your position and found it to be illogical to be physical contraction. I also found visual contraction to be necessary with the finite speed of light using the relativity postulates. I understand you have to ignore facts that are inconsistent with your understanding (beliefs). There lies the problem'

Our issue so far is you believe length contraction is physical and I believe it to be visual only. Now.

1. You created a visual example of your belief in physical contraction. You put in the program the conditions of relativity measurements to try and prove your hypothesis. That is just circular reasoning and not proof of physical contraction. You accept that as proof and your mind is made up. Fine.
2. By relativity it is only length contraction and not width contraction. So lets look at that and what we know about light clocks. So if you orient a clocks mirrors 180 degrees with the length contraction will shorten the mirrors fully for the velocity and tick faster. When we orient the mirrors 90 degrees we don't have width contraction so the length is greater for a slower tick rate. This does not happen in the real world. Clocks tick at the same rate no matter what the orientation. So your understanding fails real world observations. Try your program with mirrors and physical length contraction using light being constant. Physical contraction is not relativity of view.

Here is my interpretation:
We have the parallel mirrors going through space with fixed space positions that mass travels through. All fixed space positions have energy c as rotation of grid particles of special complimentary spins that actually move the electrons in a rotation like DNA (which is possibly why life was created). Even religionists can claim we were created from the body of God. Sorry I digress.

Try and follow my reasoning using energy c of motion for time (QM) to create relativity. Follow the postulates of relativity, c being constant and light being independent of the source. Your issue is with the source having a fixed position in space and mass. Your understanding is just a fixed position in mass. This allows you to believe in perpendicular light with velocity. That is not relativity! That is just a subjective interpretation of what you were taught by lesser minds not able to follow relativity mechanically only mathematically. So lets look at Euclidean geometry as it relates to Relativity. My example is my best effort to explain visual contraction. Try to follow but if you cannot I will understand. I visualize in my mind not needing paper.

We have a ship going half the speed of light as it relates to a observer at rest. The observer at rest has the Gods view of light moving through space. The ship has mirrors 90 degrees to vector velocity. This would be the same as a clock oriented 90 degrees. On the ship you would believe light is going perpendicular at half the speed of light. From the observer at rest (Gods view) you watch the light traveling at a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors. Your understanding is both views are equivalent. Not true that understanding is illogical. Now the observer at rest observes the hypotenuse (Gods view) and can measure the extra distance light has to travel between mirrors. So lets do a little math. Cos 30 = 0.866075 vs. the observers view of the perpendicular distance being 1 as a ratio of distance. So the tick rate of a clock would be slowed by 13.3025%. Same as the Lorentz contraction you claim to be physical. The distance for light is 1.133025 vs. 1 for the observer at rest. So we have the clocks geometry following relativity. No lets look at the contraction of view. Remember the Gods eye view? On board the ship the view of everything is 30 degrees off of 90 degrees because the image is from the past position. Here is another difficult point to understand. We have a measuring tape on the side of the ship. You are still traveling at half the speed of light. The front of the measuring sticks reflected light reaches you while the back of the measuring sticks reflection is still traveling towards you. You observe a longer measuring stick. Your measuring stick always matches the length of your ship and measures the same speed of light in a vacuum. Even though the distances of light are different.


I cannot control what you believe only you have that ability. We all have fool control of our beliefs
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/05/2017 21:48:35
I'm going to give this one last go, and then I'll have to give up as I have other demands on my time. You're still not doing relativity because you have never grasped one of its key fundamentals, so I have built a really simple thought experiment for you to work with which should force you to recognise your error.

Imagine that you're standing at one end of a table. Now imagine a straight line down the middle of the table running from your end to the far end of the table. This line divides the table into two halves (lengthways). To either side of this line, we will lay an oval railway track (that's two oval railway tracks, one on one side of the table and one on the other), each oval being the same shape as is used for the running tracks (in athletics). Each of these railway tracks has one of its long straight edges running directly alongside the imaginary line down the middle of the table. On the imaginary line, between the two oval tracks we will build a railway platform which stretches for the same distance as the length of the straight sections of the railway tracks beside it, so we have a straight stretch of railway track on either side of the platform. The platform is a metre long. On each track we will put a train right next to the platform, and both of these trains are a metre long. The ends of the trains are right next to the ends of the platform, so we can see at a glance that both trains and platform are the same length as each other.

Now lets get our trains moving round their oval tracks, accelerating them up to 0.867c before allowing them to settle at that speed for a little while so as to iron out any temporary compression or stretch caused by the way the acceleration was applied - we don't want that to interfere with our measurements of their length because such compression or stretching due to acceleration has nothing to do with relativity and must not be mixed up in it. Both trains are now moving clockwise round their track at a constant 0.866c, and they always pass the platform in opposite directions. If length-contraction is actual, these trains will now be 50cm long, but if length-contraction is merely a visual effect, they will still be 1m long. On every lap, the middles of each train always pass each other exactly when they reach the midpoint of the platform.

Let's now label a few points on the platform. The nearest end of the platform to you is called A, while the furthest point away from you is called E. Those points mark the two ends of the platform. The midpoint of the platform is called C, and the points halfway between the midpoint and the ends are called B and D, with B being half way between A and C while D is half way between C and E. We also need names for our trains, so lets call the one on the left L and the one on the right R.

SR and LET both say that because the trains are length-contracted to half their rest length at this speed, the front of train R and tail of train L will pass each other on each lap at point D, while the tail of train R and front of train L will pass each other at point B. Your model maintains that the front of R and tail of L pass each other at point E instead, while the tail of R and front of L meet up at point A. That is a major difference between SR and your faulty version of "SR". I will now show you why SR and LET both disagree with your faulty "SR".

Firstly, what do the trains look like when they're passing each other as viewed from where you're standing? At these times, you'll always see train R moving away from you, so it takes longer for the light from the front end of the train to reach you than the light from the tail end, and that means you'll see this train looking much shorter than it would if light travelled infinitely fast. In the same way, you'll see train L coming towards you, so it takes longer for the light from the tail end to reach you than the light from the front end, and that means you will see this train looking much longer than you would if light travelled infinitely fast. This apparent shortening and lengthening has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

Now I want you to relocate. I want you to hover directly over the middle of the table to look down on it instead of looking along from one end. Now what do you see? When the midpoints of the trains pass each other (at the midpoint of the platform), how far away from you are the front ends and tail ends of the trains? The answer is that these four points (the ends of the trains) are all exactly the same distance away from you (regardless of whichever altitude you decided to hover at), so the light from them reaches your eyes at the same time. This means you will see not see any shortening or lengthening of the trains caused by visual distortions. If you are capable of understanding that, you should not be capable of failing to recognise that the apparent shortenings and lengthenings from your previous viewpoint at the end of the table were visual illusions which hide real lengths from you, and that they are visual illusions which don't show up from your new viewpoint over the table. Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.

I remind you that SR and LET both say that when the midpoints of the trains pass each other at the midpoint of the platform, the ends of the trains are at points B and D, and that's what you'll see from your new position directly over the middle of the table. But you continue to disagree with SR and LET, claiming instead that SR would put the ends of the trains at points A and E at that moment. So, how can we settle the matter of whether the trains are really contracted or not? We need to look at how fast light can move along the moving trains.

Let's build a light clock into each train, each aligned so that when the train is at rest the light has to travel from the tail end of one carriage to the front end of that carriage and back again. Each carriage is 10cm long, so when the trains are at rest the light must move 20cm for each tick of the clock. We will keep an identical light clock on the platform. The speed the light travels at in the light clocks on the trains is never allowed to go faster than the light in the platform's light clock - clearly if it could go faster, it would be possible for the platform's light clock to tick faster by sending it's light forwards inside one of the trains at a higher speed than it can go at on the platform, but that's clearly breaking the laws of physics as it would allow for superluminal communication.

So, how well does your model handle this? The big question you need to ask yourself is this: how far will the trains move before light can get from the tail end of a carriage to its front end to complete half a tick? How far has that light actually travelled relative to the platform by the time it's caught up with the front end of the carriage which is racing away from it at 0.87c? This is one of the very first things you should have done when you began to study relativity, but you clearly didn't bother.

The train (and we only need to consider one train from now on) is moving at 0.867c, a speed which means that its clock should tick half as often as the platform's clock. Let's imagine that the light is sent out from the tail end of the carriage at the same moment as from the light clock on the platform and that the locations of these two events are adjacent. The two light pulses are therefore moving along side by side, one over the platform and one inside the train. When the light in the platform clock has travelled 10 cm it hits the mirror at the far end of its light clock and begins its journey back again. At this point, the train has moved 8.67cm along the track while the pulse of light in the carriage has moved a full 10cm, starting from 10cm behind the front of the carriage, which means the light pulse in its clock has only managed to move 1.33cm closer to the its mirror at the front of the carriage and still has 8.67cm to make up, which you should see straight away is going to take it a heck of a long time.

Our platform clock completes its tick when the light has travelled 10cm back the way, doing a total of 20cm. By this point, our train has moved another 8.67cm along the track and the light pulse inside it has made another 1.33cm of progress through its carriage towards its mirror. Let's allow the platform clock to tick again, because we know that it should tick twice for every tick of the train's clock. That means our train will move another two lots of 8.67cm along the track. In total then, our carriage has moved 34.6cm since the pulse of light was generated and the light in its light clock has moved 40cm, and given that it started 10cm behind the front of the carriage, is is still 4.6cm short of reaching the mirror which it needs to catch up with before it can turn round and go back. But the light clock on the platform has now ticked twice, so the light pulse in the train should have hit the mirror and returned to the back of the carriage too by this time, and yet it manifestly cannot have done so. How long will it actually take to complete a tick then? By the time the light clock on the platform has completed a third tick, our light pulse in the train's light clock has still not reached the mirror at the front of its carriage - it has gained on it by another two lots of 1.33cm but is still 2cm short of the mirror! (The light has moved 60cm and the train has moved 52cm.)

The platform's clock gets to 3.5 ticks and the light pulse in the train's clock is another 1.33cm closer to the mirror at the front of the carriage, and even now it still hasn't caught it! The light pulse in the train only reaches its mirror when the platform's clock has notched up 3.723 ticks, and then it turns around at last. The light pulse now races back the other way as the back end of the carriage races towards it (the light having to cover a little more than 5cm relative to the platform while the back of the carriage covers a little less than 5cm), and they meet very quickly this time - the train's clock completes its first tick when the platform's clock completes its fourth. That is twice as much time dilation as there should be. To get the correct time dilation you need to length-contract the train to half its rest length.

If you can't get this stuff now after all the help I've given you, then there's probably no hope for you - you will never get up to speed with relativity, but I can't tell how stuck in the mud you are - maybe, just maybe, you'll have sufficient intelligence to extract yourself from your predicament. In my experience, very few people ever do, but you might be an exception, so I wish you well. Good luck, but for pity's sake, please do the maths to test your beliefs properly.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2017 02:31:32





Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.
Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/05/2017 15:18:58

If you can't get this stuff now after all the help I've given you, then there's probably no hope for you - you will never get up to speed with relativity, but I can't tell how stuck in the mud you are - maybe, just maybe, you'll have sufficient intelligence to extract yourself from your predicament. In my experience, very few people ever do, but you might be an exception, so I wish you well. Good luck, but for pity's sake, please do the maths to test your beliefs properly.

I understand main streams belief in physical contraction. I understand the math that is used. I did not understand the issue with dimension of time as you described it. That understanding of time is just foolish. Unfortunately the training of linear thinkers which makes one good at math rarely have the more abstract flexibility and tend to ignore issues that are inconsistent with their own understanding. And you were correct again apparently my understanding is not the same as main stream's. I agree with all observations and postulates of relativity. Even that there is no preferred frame because no frame is valid. All frames are equally valid because none are a valid representation of an objects positions.

Your busy I am busy but this is interesting to me so I will devote some time.

Small steps. You ignored my example and made one of your own. Here is one inconsistent with physical contraction of length. You cannot get around this observation with your belief in physical contraction. If you can find a way around it I will have to reconsider physical length contraction. I discarded physical contraction because of this observation.

All light clocks tick at the same rate independent of their orientation. Using the postulate light being independent of the source and light is constant lets look at orientation.

When mirrors are aligned with the direction of travel and light being constant, length contraction would have a faster tick rate than when the mirrors are 90 degrees to vector speed.

My relativity uses Euclidean space, Euclidean time based on c with no physical contraction. All observations remain the same using relativity mathematics. E=c and E=mc^2 because c moves the electrons.

I will understand if you still maintain a physical contraction belief but will not understand your reasoning. I was taught physical contraction but could not resolve the light clock by orientation. If one observation fails the theory fails.

For me physical contraction failed while visual contraction is a natural result of the relativity postulates.
.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/05/2017 17:12:24
Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.
Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Box,

You are going off on a diversion. Clearly if the trains moved at 0.866c on a small tabletop our eyes would see a blur and not be able to make out anything as a train at all, but you are expected to have sufficient intelligence to separate out irrelevant issues from the ones that matter in the thought experiment so that you don't prevent yourself from understanding what's being illustrated. It's your job to fix all the small details for yourself, such as giving yourself better eyesight with a superior frame rate so that you can see the action properly, and this can be done by using a special camera which can record the action and play it back to you, thereby showing up the length-contraction on the trains. If you can't conceive of such advanced camera technology, you can go in a different direction by scaling up the experiment, perhaps using a table a light-minute long (apx. ten million miles). That is your job and not mine. It is also your job to design ways of developing trains capable of cornering at such a high speed without coming off the rails or vaporising them. Thought experiments require you do do some work in thinking your way round them - you are supposed to focus on relevant aspects of them and not waste your time trying to undermine them in ways that have no bearing on the principles being explored. Unless you approach them the right way, you are hampering your learning, which explains why there is still no evidence on show that you have ever managed to do any.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/05/2017 18:14:34
You ignored my example and made one of your own.

I couldn't follow yours as it wasn't defined well enough to make sense of it without a diagram, but from what I could make of it it was only exploring light on a zigzag path again, which means it was effectively looking at a light clock arranged perpendicular to its direction of travel, and at that angle there is no length-contraction involved in what happens to it. You need to move on from that and start exploring the maths of a light clock aligned with its direction of travel (which means all that 30 and 60 degree stuff isn't involved in it).

Quote
Here is one inconsistent with physical contraction of length. You cannot get around this observation with your belief in physical contraction. If you can find a way around it I will have to reconsider physical length contraction. I discarded physical contraction because of this observation.

You are the one with the inconsistency - I've shown you how long it takes for light starting from the back of a carriage to reach the mirror at the front end and it cannot cover that distance quickly enough unless you allow it to go faster than the speed of light or if you contract the length of the carriage. If we have a light clock perpendicular to the carriage, the light will follow a zigzag path and tick faster than a light clock aligned with the carriage. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, the platform clock ticks twice for every tick of the light clock in the carriage that's aligned across the carriage, and it will tick four times for every tick of the light clock in the carriage that's aligned lengthways along the carriage. That is what the MMX guys expected to show up with their experiment, but it produced a null result instead every time (and continues to do so a century later with much better equipment). That is why the length-contraction must be real.

Quote
All light clocks tick at the same rate independent of their orientation. Using the postulate light being independent of the source and light is constant lets look at orientation.

When mirrors are aligned with the direction of travel and light being constant, length contraction would have a faster tick rate than when the mirrors are 90 degrees to vector speed.

Your description is insufficient to understand which way your mirrors are aligned. When I go with the most obvious way to interpret your description, I get the opposite conclusion to the one you've provided. A mirror occupies a plane, and if that plane is perpendicular to the direction in which the mirrors are moving (with the mirrors parallel to each other), then the light moving between them will be moving in the same direction as the mirrors some of the time and in the opposite direction the rest of the time, and in this case the clock will tick less often rather than more often - this is the equivalent of the light clock in the carriage where the light starts from the back of the carriage and has to chase after the mirror at the front end for a long time before it can bounce off it and return to the start, and as I've shown you, it takes a very long time for it to catch up with the leading mirror.

Quote
My relativity uses Euclidean space, Euclidean time based on c with no physical contraction. All observations remain the same using relativity mathematics. E=c and E=mc^2 because c moves the electrons.

That's lovely, but you have to follow the rules of Euclidean space and time and not have light go faster than the speed of light. If the carriage is 10cm long, at 0.867c and with no length-contraction it will take nearly seven times as long for light to get from the back end of it to the front end as it would take it with the carriage stationary, but the moving clock has to click once for every two ticks of the stationary clock. I've shown you the numbers that demonstrate that the moving clock can only tick once for every four ticks of the stationary clock unless you contract its length. How do you handle that without applying contraction and without having the light move at twice the speed of light?

Quote
I will understand if you still maintain a physical contraction belief but will not understand your reasoning. I was taught physical contraction but could not resolve the light clock by orientation. If one observation fails the theory fails.

Have you still not crunched the numbers to see for yourself? I've given you a set of numbers for 0.867c, so do you think they're wrong? The carriage is moving at 0.866c and light is moving at c, so how long do you think it takes for light to get from the back of the carriage to the front? You don't have to believe my numbers - you can generate your own and see if they match up. What you really ought to do though is try it out with a speed of your own choice, such as 0.5c for the speed of the train. How long will light take to get from the back of the carriage to the front at that speed and how long will it take to go back from the front to the back to complete a tick. If you do the maths correctly, you'll find that you need to contract the moving carriage from 10cm to 8.67cm for your clock to tick at the right rate relative to the stationary clock on the platform. The maths at 0.5c is more awkward than with my 0.867c example, so I can understand why you've never bothered to try to work out the answer before, but you need to do this if you are to begin to understand relativity.

Quote
For me physical contraction failed while visual contraction is a natural result of the relativity postulates.

And you will remain stuck with that misunderstanding so long as you fail to do the maths to check whether it hangs together or not. Look at my numbers and ask yourself how a light clock aligned lengthways in a carriage moving at 0.867c can possibly tick half as often as a stationary clock on the platform when it takes light four times as long to complete a round trip within the moving clock. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and study how fast the red light pulses move across the screen and how far they travel relative to the apparatus. It's only in the second one with length-contraction that the light on the horizontal arm is able to complete its round trip in the same time as the light on the vertical arm to produce a null result. I've put it all in front of your eyes in clear view and there's nothing more I can do for you if you still can't see it.

Study the first interactive diagram of the MMX again and remember that the two arms are equivalent to a pair of light clocks. On the left you have a stationary MMX showing a tick completed in 250 units of the time counter underneath, and then on the right there's a moving MMX with no length-contraction. On the vertical arm you see a tick being completed at 500 units of counter time, but on the horizontal arm the light has not finished its round trip. If you then look at the second interactive diagram instead (with length-contraction applied to the horizontal arm, halving it's length as required for the speed of 0.867c), you can see the light completing a tick in 500 time units on both arms of the apparatus, and that's what matches up with the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2017 19:22:15
Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.
Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Box,

You are going off on a diversion. Clearly if the trains moved at 0.866c on a small tabletop our eyes would see a blur and not be able to make out anything as a train at all, but you are expected to have sufficient intelligence to separate out irrelevant issues from the ones that matter in the thought experiment so that you don't prevent yourself from understanding what's being illustrated. It's your job to fix all the small details for yourself, such as giving yourself better eyesight with a superior frame rate so that you can see the action properly, and this can be done by using a special camera which can record the action and play it back to you, thereby showing up the length-contraction on the trains. If you can't conceive of such advanced camera technology, you can go in a different direction by scaling up the experiment, perhaps using a table a light-minute long (apx. ten million miles). That is your job and not mine. It is also your job to design ways of developing trains capable of cornering at such a high speed without coming off the rails or vaporising them. Thought experiments require you do do some work in thinking your way round them - you are supposed to focus on relevant aspects of them and not waste your time trying to undermine them in ways that have no bearing on the principles being explored. Unless you approach them the right way, you are hampering your learning, which explains why there is still no evidence on show that you have ever managed to do any.

Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride, for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus, so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/05/2017 21:03:33
Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride...

Where does pride come into the issue? All I do is pursue truth by pushing things to breaking point. When my ideas break, I change them, and where other people's ideas break, I show them where they break and they generally dig in to defend them regardless of how broken they are, although there are some who are adaptable enough to learn and advance.

Quote
... for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus...

And how long does that difference in speed need to last? If you accelerate something to a high speed and then let it settle down to that high speed, the length will adjust until the atoms are sitting the right distance apart for it to be neither stretched nor compressed. There will be times during this adjustment when the trailing end is moving faster than the leading end, but once it's settled down the speeds of both ends will match.

Quote
..., so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

To your mind, everything that makes sense breaks down and everything irrational is good. The result is that you go round scrawling your ignorance all over hundreds of threads in the forum. Perhaps it's an art project of some kind, but it isn't one that I care for.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2017 21:47:20
Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride...

Quote
Where does pride come into the issue? All I do is pursue truth by pushing things to breaking point. When my ideas break, I change them, and where other people's ideas break, I show them where they break and they generally dig in to defend them regardless of how broken they are, although there are some who are adaptable enough to learn and advance.

Likewise I break things down ''things'' down to the naked science, the bare essentials and rudiment of thought, thus being why it is always best to start at the ''beginning''. Maybe in your own mind you think you are breaking things down, however how far can your mind go before it hits the ''wall'' and can go no further.
For one to understand one must firstly want to listen, there is not many who like to listen but prefer their own voice .


Quote
... for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus...

Quote
And how long does that difference in speed need to last? If you accelerate something to a high speed and then let it settle down to that high speed, the length will adjust until the atoms are sitting the right distance apart for it to be neither stretched nor compressed. There will be times during this adjustment when the trailing end is moving faster than the leading end, but once it's settled down the speeds of both ends will match.
For something to contract there would be ''cracks'' and once returned to normal velocity we could quite clearly observe no ''cracks''.  This is why we have stress levels etc, the sort of science that is real. 
Also The object would deform , more than likely curve like,



Quote
..., so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

Quote
To your mind, everything that makes sense breaks down and everything irrational is good. The result is that you go round scrawling your ignorance all over hundreds of threads in the forum. Perhaps it's an art project of some kind, but it isn't one that I care for.

Maybe you are not clever enough to understand me and I am beyond your inability to break down.

P.s Please feel free to try breakdown my ideas about time in other thread. (you will fail)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 08/05/2017 17:41:58
Likewise I break things down ''things'' down to the naked science, the bare essentials and rudiment of thought, thus being why it is always best to start at the ''beginning''. Maybe in your own mind you think you are breaking things down, however how far can your mind go before it hits the ''wall'' and can go no further.
For one to understand one must firstly want to listen, there is not many who like to listen but prefer their own voice .

The difference between us is the rigour with which we break things down and the amount of magic that you tolerate to maintain your beliefs that things work in ways which are logically impossible. To be fair to you though, I haven't read much of what you've written over the last year or so and it's possible that you have shifted position on many issues without me noticing, although reading some of your recent posts doesn't inspire me to want to put in the time required to check.

Quote
For something to contract there would be ''cracks'' and once returned to normal velocity we could quite clearly observe no ''cracks''.  This is why we have stress levels etc, the sort of science that is real. 
Also The object would deform , more than likely curve like,

Why should there be cracks? If the higher speed of travel leads to the atoms settling closer together in their direction of travel, they'll simply move closer to each other without affecting the integrity of whatever object they collectively form. During acceleration there will be stresses on the object, of course, and these may take the form of stretch if the acceleration is applied from the front (the engine of a train normally pulls the carriages), but if the acceleration is applied to the back (e.g. moving a train backwards, or a boat with a propeller at the back) then it will take the form of compression. If the stresses are too high, the object will break, so you need to keep the G force low throughout the acceleration to avoid this. The length-contraction resulting from moving at higher speed does not apply stresses but results from atoms settling into places that eliminate (or minimise) stress. (Not all stresses can be eliminated because some structures have stresses locked into them, but that's another issue entirely.)

Quote
Maybe you are not clever enough to understand me and I am beyond your inability to break down.

I doubt science can understand you yet, but it is not a bad thing for it to have that ambition.

Quote
P.s Please feel free to try breakdown my ideas about time in other thread. (you will fail)

I doubt that's necessary - if your ideas about time don't fit the facts, they're already broken, but if they fit the facts, they shouldn't be in conflict with my ideas about time.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 08/05/2017 18:28:31
And you will remain stuck with that misunderstanding so long as you fail to do the maths to check whether it hangs together or not. Look at my numbers and ask yourself how a light clock aligned lengthways in a carriage moving at 0.867c can possibly tick half as often as a stationary clock on the platform when it takes light four times as long to complete a round trip within the moving clock. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and study how fast the red light pulses move across the screen and how far they travel relative to the apparatus. It's only in the second one with length-contraction that the light on the horizontal arm is able to complete its round trip in the same time as the light on the vertical arm to produce a null result. I've put it all in front of your eyes in clear view and there's nothing more I can do for you if you still can't see it.

Ok lets do it my way with light zig zagging between mirrors.

For your example: A^2 + B^2 = C^2 or A^2 = C^2 - B^2 A and C are the distance for light A= 1 B=0.866025 since you chose the half tick rate:
Sq Rt 1^2= 1^2 - 0.866025^2  = SQ. RT. 1 = 1 - 0.749999  =  SQ.RT. 1=1 SQ.RT. 1 -0.75 = SQ. RT. 0.25 = 0.5 vs. 1 for the platform.

Sq Rt 1^2= 1^2 -0.5^2  = SQ. RT. 1 = 1 - 0.749999  =  SQ.RT. 1=1 SQ.RT. 1 -0.25 = SQ. RT. 0.25 = 0.866025 vs. 1 for the platform

This is from where the Lorentz contraction came.  Zig zagging light making right triangles. I get the same answers as you do in Euclidean space.

Is a clock tick rate more non linear than relativity suggests at higher relative velocities? If that's the case than orientation of the clock will change the tick rate above half the speed of light for light clocks. At half the speed of light the two way speed of light compensates to match Lorentz contraction of tick rate in every angle
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 08/05/2017 20:28:14
Ok lets do it my way with light zig zagging between mirrors.

No. You're still avoiding doing the maths that you need to do. All you've ever done is the maths for a light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, and that does not impact on length-contraction at all. I asked you to do the maths for a light clock aligned with its direction of travel where the light has to chase after a mirror that's moving directly away from it without any zigzagging involved. I showed you my numbers for this to see if you would disagree with them, and I then suggested that you should produce numbers in the same way for a different speed of travel such as 0.5c with a light clock aligned in the same direction as it is moving in (so that you can work your way through the idea more independently).

Quote
This is from where the Lorentz contraction came.  Zig zagging light making right triangles. I get the same answers as you do in Euclidean space.

That is where time dilation comes from, but not where length-contraction comes from. Length-contraction comes in when you try to get light clocks aligned in the same direction as their direction of travel to conform to the same tick rate as light clocks aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel. The numbers produced at the end of the process happen to be the same, so it turns out that you can always take the length-contraction figure from the time dilation figure calculated from a light clock perpendicular to its direction of travel, but in working out length-contraction from scratch after the MMX produced its null result, Lorentz had to look at how light clocks aligned in the same direction as their direction of travel behave, and you must do the same if you are ever going to understand why length contraction is necessary.

Quote
Is a clock tick rate more non linear than relativity suggests at higher relative velocities?

I can't work out what you're trying to ask, but you can easily crunch a few numbers to see how much time dilation and length-contraction applies at higher speeds, and you can plot your own graph of the results. At 0.968c you'll find length-contraction is still only to 1/4 of the rest length, but the dilation and contraction become severe rapidly after that. 0.968c is another good speed to work with when you're exploring length contraction because a light clock in a carriage aligned perpendicular to the carriage will tick once for every four ticks of the platform's clock while a light clock aligned lengthways down the carriage will tick once for every 16 ticks of the platform's clock if it isn't length-contracted to 1/4 of its rest length. Perhaps you'd like to explore that to see how long it takes light from the back of the carriage to reach the mirror at the front. With the light starting from a point 10cm behind the leading mirror, it will have closed in on the mirror by only 0.32cm by the time it's gone 10cm because the mirror has moved 9.68cm. By the time the platform's completed four ticks, the light in the carriage will have closed in on the mirror it's chasing by 8 times 0.32cm, so that's 2.56cm - it's only gone a little bit more than a quarter of the distance it has to cover to reach the mirror, and yet by this time it should have bounced off it and returned to the tail end of the carriage to complete a tick. This maths isn't so scary if you put your mind to it, so give it a go and stop limiting yourself to testing the perpendicular light clock over and over again which will tell you absolutely nothing about why length-contraction is needed to account for the null result of MMX.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/05/2017 22:33:39


I doubt that's necessary - if your ideas about time don't fit the facts, they're already broken, but if they fit the facts, they shouldn't be in conflict with my ideas about time.

I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/05/2017 17:50:06
I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.

I spent a lot of time discussing things with you in the past and found you to be incapable of recognising a whole host of errors in your thinking (no matter how clearly they were shown to you and no matter how many different ways they were shown to you). I'm not prepared to spend any more of my time trying to lead a horse to water when it shows every sign of being incapable of drinking - that is a job for AGI to take on, so I'd rather put the time into building AGI. Then you (and anyone else whose thinking is riddled with errors) will have access to a perfect reasoning machine with the patience of a God, and it will be able to demonstrate everything to you directly on the screen with purpose-build interactive diagrams tailored to your needs in real time, which is something that simply isn't practical even for a team of the most capable humans working on you via a forum. Most importantly, it will be able to follow your own rules to the letter and show you how they conflict with each other and generate a mass of contradiction, so that's the best hope for anything being able to help you to tidy up your thinking. No human is going to want to untangle that mess for you, so you're just going to have to be patient and wait for machine assistance.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/05/2017 19:22:25
I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.

I spent a lot of time discussing things with you in the past and found you to be incapable of recognising a whole host of errors in your thinking (no matter how clearly they were shown to you and no matter how many different ways they were shown to you). I'm not prepared to spend any more of my time trying to lead a horse to water when it shows every sign of being incapable of drinking - that is a job for AGI to take on, so I'd rather put the time into building AGI. Then you (and anyone else whose thinking is riddled with errors) will have access to a perfect reasoning machine with the patience of a God, and it will be able to demonstrate everything to you directly on the screen with purpose-build interactive diagrams tailored to your needs in real time, which is something that simply isn't practical even for a team of the most capable humans working on you via a forum. Most importantly, it will be able to follow your own rules to the letter and show you how they conflict with each other and generate a mass of contradiction, so that's the best hope for anything being able to help you to tidy up your thinking. No human is going to want to untangle that mess for you, so you're just going to have to be patient and wait for machine assistance.
Quite clearly by your arrogant words you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?  thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

Computers are not the answer to anything.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/05/2017 21:50:32
Quite clearly by your arrogant words...

And you aren't arrogant? You spend most of your time telling people that they're wrong, but you also fail to back up your claims with rational arguments.

Quote
...you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

Give me a link to it so that I can look at the first post, and provide a list of any other numbered posts which are essential to your argument so that I don't have to read the whole thread.

Quote
No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

What usually happens with you is that you refuse to accept things that are logical requirements, and at that point further discussion becomes pointless.

Quote
Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?

I doubt you've ever tried hard to think.

Quote
thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

If one plays chess against a pigeon, it generally knocks all your pieces over and defecates on the board, but that doesn't mean it's won.

Quote
Computers are not the answer to anything.

They will certainly be the answer to this.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/05/2017 23:02:11
Quite clearly by your arrogant words...

And you aren't arrogant? You spend most of your time telling people that they're wrong, but you also fail to back up your claims with rational arguments.

Quote
...you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

Give me a link to it so that I can look at the first post, and provide a list of any other numbered posts which are essential to your argument so that I don't have to read the whole thread.

Quote
No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

What usually happens with you is that you refuse to accept things that are logical requirements, and at that point further discussion becomes pointless.

Quote
Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?

I doubt you've ever tried hard to think.

Quote
thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

If one plays chess against a pigeon, it generally knocks all your pieces over and defecates on the board, but that doesn't mean it's won.

Quote
Computers are not the answer to anything.

They will certainly be the answer to this.

Ok, I only need you to read the first post and premise for argument.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69890.0

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/05/2017 00:50:39
Box,

Quote
Times passes by for any matter in the Universe, but how fast does time pass matter by?  One could set a rate and use an equivalent to record the measurement of time!  However, one would be by doing this, setting the speed of time by there own equivalents speed/rate.

It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement  being used.   This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.

Is that it? What does it mean? The present is momentary and moves on such that what was present becomes past? Time passes at the rate time passes? Nothing revolutionary there - it fits with LET.

Quote
added - time is the memory of passed events.

The memory of passed events cannot be substituted for time in any simulation, so that bit's clearly wrong.

Next post:-

Quote
I prefer the measurement of past time to be that of a mechanical and constant nature, a normal mechanical clock  does  the job.

You run into problems with that when you move a clock quickly or put it in a gravity well - whenever it runs slow, you're failing to count all the time that's gone by.

Quote
It is not the question of how we measure time though, it is the importance of understanding time and the realisation of that there is no time dilation, time travel or likes.

There clearly is time dilation, but the issue with it is the interpretation of what's going on. Some say that when one clock runs faster than another, they've both recorded true time without either of them really running slow (SR), but others say that both are governed by absolute time and that at least one of them ran slow (LET).

Quote
No past or future and only the present state of matter which ''decays'' in space.

The past was and the future will be, but they are not in the present (LET). [SR has other ways of looking things in which all times can be eternal.]

Quote
Simultaneity is the stuff of fairy tales and easy to prove incorrect.

Simultaneity is real. Without it you can have no interactions between things as they can't meet up in the same place and time. You also lose the ability to have a "while".

Quote
One visual universe whole that visual matter exists in a present state, we measure change of the state of matter, but all the measurements are past measurements,  ''time'' passes by at an instant and infinite speed for all matter.

Nothing innovative there.

Next post:-

Quote
Although matter decays at different rates taking into account ''time'' dilation, the rate of true time is constant, decay does not mean different ages.   The twin with the relative slower decay clock, does not age less, they just decay less. and last longer in ''time''. The period of time for both twins is synchronous, but the travelling twin who has decayed less, lives longer.

How can it be synchronous when you've denied simultaneity? But what you've described here is consistent with LET's position which is that slowed clocks simply run slow and decay less because there is less opportunity for them to change. Where do I have to look to find your revolutionary idea that doesn't date back hundreds of years?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/05/2017 01:38:48
Box,



Quote
It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement  being used.   This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.

Quote
Is that it? What does it mean? The present is momentary and moves on such that what was present becomes past? Time passes at the rate time passes? Nothing revolutionary there - it fits with LET.


You should of really posted this in my thread rather than the high jack of Goc's thread.  Quite clearly your ability to understand is difficult for you. If you was as smart as you think you are , you would understand what it meant without further explanation from me.
Maybe you should read the rest of my thread! you may find it gets really interesting when I show science how naive they have been for the past 100 years or so .
However I will leave you with a relative question that the answer should then allow you to understand what ''that'' means.

This a question about two observers, one observer is on Earth and one observer  is on planet x.

Both observers have to devise a way to measure time, both observers decide that 1 rotation of their relative planet would be equal too one day. Planet Earth's rotation speed is differential to that of planet x.

Why can't the observers devise time using this method?











 

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/05/2017 20:09:05
You should of really posted this in my thread rather than the high jack of Goc's thread.

You think I hijacked his thread? You don't think it might have been you that did that? If I'd posted it in your thread without reading the whole thread, that would have been disrespecting everyone else who'd posted there as they might already have said the same things I was going to say, and all of them would have been pestered by an email about it too. The path of minimum disruption was to deal with you here.

Quote
Quite clearly your ability to understand is difficult for you. If you was as smart as you think you are , you would understand what it meant without further explanation from me.

I can't read your mind, so when you describe something in a confused manner, I'd prefer it if you'd rephrase it clearly instead so that it's clear what you think you're applying logic to, and how you imagine you're applying logic to it.

Quote
Maybe you should read the rest of my thread! you may find it gets really interesting when I show science how naive they have been for the past 100 years or so .

I know exactly how naive they've been, but I've also seen more than enough evidence that you aren't up to speed with things either.

Quote
However I will leave you with a relative question that the answer should then allow you to understand what ''that'' means.

This a question about two observers, one observer is on Earth and one observer  is on planet x.

Both observers have to devise a way to measure time, both observers decide that 1 rotation of their relative planet would be equal too one day. Planet Earth's rotation speed is differential to that of planet x.

Why can't the observers devise time using this method?

They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs - it simply runs at whatever speed it runs at (and our perception of how fast it runs could be very different from that of other species and aliens). That appears to fit with what you said, but the bit I couldn't make sense of is how you get from there to denying time dilation. You didn't provide an interpretation of what you mean by time dilation either - in SR, time dilation is a kind of voodoo in which things can take shortcuts into the future, but in LET time dilation simply means that some clocks run slow due to their depth in a gravity well or their speed of travel and fail to record absolute time as a result, which I suspect fits with your position.

I'm intrigued by the "yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen" part though - I don't know who you were referring to there.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/05/2017 23:06:23
They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs
Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.   The mind I was referring to is my own.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/05/2017 17:46:46
They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs
Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.

If you read carefully and understood everything, you'd have worked out that you are not the only person who doesn't consider "time dilation" to be a dilation of time. Lorentz never took it as that, but I think he used the term, although he may merely have done so when speaking the same language as Einstein. "Time dilation" is certainly not a good term to use for LET where it is merely a clock running slow.

Quote
The mind I was referring to is my own.

Then why do you make mistakes all over the place and fail to acknowledge or correct them? I told you when you first posted on this forum that it looked as if you ought to be in the LET camp, but you didn't realise that and you still don't. What is so special about your position and your mind? You denied the role of a fabric of space and insisted that space was nothing, which led to the problem that you had a "nothing" with properties that enabled it to impose three space dimensions on its content, to enable separation of objects by distance, and to impose a speed limit on light through your "nothing". Have you realised yet that your "nothing" must be something?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 11/05/2017 18:24:09
David,

Sorry work interferes with pleasure sometimes. I enjoy our discussions with the knowledge you and I are not all knowing.
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light. I may have misunderstood Einstein's Relativity with how it handles time as a dimension. I understand time as the energy of motion with energy being of space and not mass. So c = spin particle energy of a stationary existence causing the propagation of a wave on the grid spectrum with the resistance caused by mass, we call a photon. Of course the photon and rotating electron motion being c. Straight vector c for the photon and a rotating vector motion c for the electron.

Math has to follow a theory to be correct but math can also follow a theory that is incorrect.

Lets try to train (excuse the pun) me up a bit. This is titled mechanical relativity. What causes mass to contract with velocity in space?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/05/2017 21:30:06
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light. I may have misunderstood Einstein's Relativity with how it handles time as a dimension. I understand time as the energy of motion with energy being of space and not mass. So c = spin particle energy of a stationary existence causing the propagation of a wave on the grid spectrum with the resistance caused by mass, we call a photon. Of course the photon and rotating electron motion being c. Straight vector c for the photon and a rotating vector motion c for the electron.

That sounds viable in part, but I wouldn't want to equate it with time. We know that matter can decay into electromagnetic radiation, so it's essentially the same stuff tied up in knots. As radiation it is free to move at maximum speed, and that speed of movement freezes its functionality. When tied up in matter, it's hard to know what it's all doing in there. Some of it may be racing about at c, and maybe all of it is. Any particle that is spread out, like an electron, is complex, having different parts in different locations, and something must be organising and maintaining its shape. That maintenance must involve communications operating continually, and they most likely operate at c. If we can measure the shape of an electron with great precision (and I'm fairly sure that I've heard that we can), length-contraction must operate on it - if it didn't, we'd detect it changing relative to our measuring equipment depending on the time of day and the month when we measure it in (due to the Earth's rotation and orbit round the sun). I'm not aware of any science that can explain the functionality of an electron in terms of the behaviour of smaller components and interactions between those components, so I suspect we only have theories about what might be going on inside them, and I don't know how deep those theories go.

But what is time? I think of it as opportunity for movement (and thereby opportunity for change). A photon is able to move and time governs its movement. A particle is able to age, and that ageing depends on internal movement which is again governed by time. But time is not energy. Light is energy (or one type of transmission of energy). Matter is energy running on the spot (but with complications, such as having mass, although light too has mass in some form, adding that mass to any object that absorbs it). Time is not made of light or matter, or indeed of energy - it appears to be something distinct and fundamental that can't be broken down into other things.

Quote
Lets try to train (excuse the pun) me up a bit. This is titled mechanical relativity. What causes mass to contract with velocity in space?

It isn't mass that's contracting, but matter, and it's spread-out matter rather than a point particle. Without knowing what's going on in the components of this matter, we can only speculate about the mechanisms by which it functions. There is likely a smallest component of energy, and even with photons we're not seeing an indivisible object - they can be high-energy photons like gamma rays or low energy ones like radio waves, and we haven't yet found a smallest component of energy out of which they're built in multiples. Then there's the question as to whether the light is a thing in its own right or if it's just the movement of a space fabric as energy moves through it. There's too much that's unknown.

What we can say about the mechanism of length-contraction though is that it makes sense if you work at a higher level with things which communicate with each other and coordinate their relative positions. If we work with rockets, for example, we can have four of them forming a square and sitting in space. If we then decide to move them somewhere, they have to accelerate, and if they start this at the same moment by the time of the frame of reference in which they are stationary, they will soon find that they appear to be too far apart in their direction of travel, though their separation perpendicular to that appears unchanged. If they want to continue to act as a square (by their own measurements), they must settle closer together in their direction of travel. If, for example, we have rockets A and B in the lead with C and D following them such that they're forming a square with A neither leading nor trailing B (and with C following B's path while D follows A), A and D will need to move closer together, as will B and C. We can use pairs of these rockets as the ends of light clocks and ping light or radio signals back and forth between them, and if we do that, it's only by length-contracting the square that the timings will be the same sideways across the square as lengthways. So, length-contraction makes sense for rockets where coordination is involved in maintaining their separation.

Are components of matter also comparing communication distances and making adjustments to keep them equal in different directions? I doubt it, but whatever they're doing, it has the same effect.

What we need to look at is a small object orbiting a massive one in what would be a circular orbit if the massive object is considered to be stationary. If we take the massive object as moving at 0.867c though, the orbit of the small object moving around it will turn into an ellipse, and the massive object will still be at the centre of that ellipse rather than at one of the foci. This orbit must be compatible with the normal rules about how gravity acts on things, and within that must lie the explanation for length-contraction, although you will need to take into account the change in mass of the orbiting object due to "relativistic mass" - it's that extra factor that makes the key difference in the calculations. For example, if the orbiting object is going round the massive object at 0.2c, its speed through space can never hit the maximum of 1.0867c that a naive interpretation would predict for it. The speed of the orbiting object will actually change a lot as it goes round the massive object (and I mean its speed relative to that massive object), and whenever its speed reduces, its relativistic mass has to go up instead to compensate. This same thing would be happening within atoms for any components that are moving forwards or backwards relative to the direction of travel of the atom, affecting their range by converting some of their speed into relativistic mass. That is the fundamental explanation of length-contraction.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/05/2017 22:31:47
They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs
Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.

If you read carefully and understood everything, you'd have worked out that you are not the only person who doesn't consider "time dilation" to be a dilation of time. Lorentz never took it as that, but I think he used the term, although he may merely have done so when speaking the same language as Einstein. "Time dilation" is certainly not a good term to use for LET where it is merely a clock running slow.

Quote
The mind I was referring to is my own.

Then why do you make mistakes all over the place and fail to acknowledge or correct them? I told you when you first posted on this forum that it looked as if you ought to be in the LET camp, but you didn't realise that and you still don't. What is so special about your position and your mind? You denied the role of a fabric of space and insisted that space was nothing, which led to the problem that you had a "nothing" with properties that enabled it to impose three space dimensions on its content, to enable separation of objects by distance, and to impose a speed limit on light through your "nothing". Have you realised yet that your "nothing" must be something?
I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.
You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason. I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .
Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 12/05/2017 19:15:13
I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.

There is no reason why there should be any nothing at all, and all the objects that we think of as existing in space may actually be that fabric of space, just as waves on water are the water. What we do know of space though is that it imposes order on its content. What is it that makes all objects in our universe three dimensional, and what stops them rotating into other dimensions within a space that doesn't impose a three space-dimension limit on them? 2D objects in our 3D space would drift out of alignment with each other and seem to disappear for other 2D objects, and 3D objects in a space that doesn't have a 3D structure would drift out of alignment with other 3D objects in the same way as they rotate into other dimensions and appear to vanish. Light wouldn't spread out according to the inverse square law because it wouldn't be forced to remain within a 3D space in a space that doesn't impose that restriction upon it. Two objects that are supposedly a metre apart would actually be touching each other if there was literally nothing between them. Space is not nothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not in the game.

Quote
You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, ...

You have a model with magic in it because it gives properties to nothing that nothing cannot have. Whatever you build upon that failure is almost certainly going to be worthless.

Quote
...they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason.

That is more than evident.

Quote
I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .

Magical thinking doesn't destroy any theories, but should actually allow you to see them all as valid by fixing any faults they might have with more magic. You also have enormous comprehension difficulties, in this case leading you to state incorrectly that I've equated our present "speed" of time to the rotational speed of the Earth. There are many different things that measure time, but they all measure apparent time rather than absolute time, slowed by any gravitational interactions and by their speed of travel through the fabric of space (as well as the fabric of space's possible movement/expansion within another fabric [of which it may again be a part rather than content]).

Quote
Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .

All you've done is put yourself in an irrational position and fool yourself into thinking you're the one who's got it all right, but when your "nothing" has properties and thereby reveals itself to be something rather than nothing, everyone can see your position as ridiculous (unless they have the same ridiculous beliefs, and some SR fans aren't that far away from your position, failing to understand that their beloved Spacetime is also a fabric (aether).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 12/05/2017 19:31:48
More on length contraction:-

Imagine you're in a rocket and you want to fly it in a square path around a stationary central point. You can do this by accelerating from stationary in a moment using a blast of power, then wait until you're in the right place to put in a 90 degree turn. The turn can be made by stopping for a moment with a blast of power, then sending another blast sideways. It's easy to see how the square path can be completed.

Now do the same thing again, but this time with a central point that's moving at 0.867c. You start by moving at the same speed as that central point and place yourself the right distance relative to it to appear to be on a corner of the square you want to plot out with your movement. You follow exactly the same procedure as in the previous paragraph, and the resulting shape looks square to you, but to a stationary observer, it's length-contracted. If we try to make the rocket speed 0.867c too (relative to the central point) while it's moving along the edges of our square, its actual speed will vary considerably from the point of view of a stationary observer, so if two of the edges of the square are aligned in the same direction as the direction the central point is moving in, the rocket will actually be stationary when it's plotting out one edge of the square and will be moving at 0.99c when plotting out the opposite edge. It will take much longer to plot out the opposite edge too, but it will take the same length of time by the rocket's own clock.

That is length-contraction in action, the square shape  being halved in the direction of travel at this speed. If we were to control things by sending out signals from the central point to tell the rocket when to change course, it would plot out exactly the same length-contracted shape because of the communication delays, so a massive object with a small object orbiting it will produce the same contraction on its orbit too, and this will apply to anything else with components which move relative to each other as part of its functionality. Einstein criticised length-contraction in LET as ad hoc, but he was wrong to do so - it is something that happens in the full range of cases and for fully rational reasons.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/05/2017 19:39:39
SR was chosen over LET as a matter of convention. There is no reason why LET shouldn't replace SR.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 13/05/2017 18:47:48
David,

Once again lets look at a situation to determine if you believe light can go 90 degrees from a vector direction. I do not believe that is possible. So,

Two ships going the speed of light ( can't happen but just for grins and giggles) shoot out light perpendicular (you can't create light at the speed of light but humor me). Could one ship view the light from the other.
The real answer is no but you may have another view.

Now at 0.999 c perpendicular view?
0.867 c perpendicular view?

I do not believe any relativistic speed can have a perpendicular view. Light being independent of the source and simultaneity of relativity.

What is your understanding?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 13/05/2017 19:10:37
Once again lets look at a situation to determine if you believe light can go 90 degrees from a vector direction. I do not believe that is possible.

Could you phrase that more carefully so that I can tell what it means? Do you mean that if an object is moving along, it can't emit light at 90 degrees to it (the object's) direction of travel? It can put light out in all directions. If you are imagining a laser with the object aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel of the object, then that can't put out light at 90 degrees to that direction unless the object is stationary.

Quote
So,

Two ships going the speed of light ( can't happen but just for grins and giggles) shoot out light perpendicular (you can't create light at the speed of light but humor me). Could one ship view the light from the other.
The real answer is no but you may have another view.

If we allow the ships to move move at c [as opposed to at sea], their clocks will stop and so will their functionality, so they cannot produce light. If we magically allow them to produce light, it would either have to go backwards at some angle (although I suspect that would be zero-energy light and would therefore not exist) or directly forwards (at the same speed as the ships, so it would never appear to be emitted).

Quote
Now at 0.999 c perpendicular view?
0.867 c perpendicular view?

Now light can be produced that can go slightly to the side, thereby allowing it to make the trip between the two ships at an angle which to them appears perpendicular. It will take a long time to make the trip across in the 0.999c case, but it should do as their clocks are running very slow to match. In the 0.867c case it will take twice as long for the light to travel between the ships as it would if they were both at rest.

Quote
I do not believe any relativistic speed can have a perpendicular view. Light being independent of the source and simultaneity of relativity.

What is your understanding?

I can't see what the problem is. If you have two cars moving along a runway, each at opposite sides but level with each other, you can aim a gun on one car directly perpendicular to the car's direction of travel and hit the other car with a bullet. If we did that in a vacuum, the bullet would hit the other car as near to the front or back as the gun is positioned in the first car. If you replace the gun with a laser, the same thing applies - the light follows the path it takes through the laser and continues moving in that direction, then it would burn a hole straight through the other car perpendicular to that car's direction of travel, even though the light's not moving perpendicular to the runway. If you make the cars move at 0.999999c, the light will move so slowly through the laser (while moving through space at c) that it will be directed almost directly forwards, but it will still reach the other car eventually and burn a hole through it perpendicular to the car's direction of travel.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 13/05/2017 22:31:05

I can't see what the problem is. If you have two cars moving along a runway, each at opposite sides but level with each other, you can aim a gun on one car directly perpendicular to the car's direction of travel and hit the other car with a bullet. If we did that in a vacuum, the bullet would hit the other car as near to the front or back as the gun is positioned in the first car. If you replace the gun with a laser, the same thing applies - the light follows the path it takes through the laser and continues moving in that direction, then it would burn a hole straight through the other car perpendicular to that car's direction of travel, even though the light's not moving perpendicular to the runway. If you make the cars move at 0.999999c, the light will move so slowly through the laser (while moving through space at c) that it will be directed almost directly forwards, but it will still reach the other car eventually and burn a hole through it perpendicular to the car's direction of travel.

Ok, here we might have a difference in understanding.

There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/05/2017 15:54:25
I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.

Quote
There is no reason why there should be any nothing at all, and all the objects that we think of as existing in space may actually be that fabric of space, just as waves on water are the water. What we do know of space though is that it imposes order on its content. What is it that makes all objects in our universe three dimensional, and what stops them rotating into other dimensions within a space that doesn't impose a three space-dimension limit on them? 2D objects in our 3D space would drift out of alignment with each other and seem to disappear for other 2D objects, and 3D objects in a space that doesn't have a 3D structure would drift out of alignment with other 3D objects in the same way as they rotate into other dimensions and appear to vanish. Light wouldn't spread out according to the inverse square law because it wouldn't be forced to remain within a 3D space in a space that doesn't impose that restriction upon it. Two objects that are supposedly a metre apart would actually be touching each other if there was literally nothing between them. Space is not nothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not in the game.

Quite clearly you are incorrect and indeed nothing exists, May I ask are you defining nothing as without dimension?  or considering nothing to be a dimensional volume of 0 points?



Quote
You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, ...

Quote
You have a model with magic in it because it gives properties to nothing that nothing cannot have. Whatever you build upon that failure is almost certainly going to be worthless.
There is no properties in nothing, there is properties in the ''0'' field that occupies the volume of nothing. XYZ is the properties of nothing, do you even understand Minkowski's space-time?



Quote
...they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason.

[quoteThat is more than evident.

That would again be an incorrect statement, I am science.

Quote
I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .

Quote
Magical thinking doesn't destroy any theories, but should actually allow you to see them all as valid by fixing any faults they might have with more magic. You also have enormous comprehension difficulties, in this case leading you to state incorrectly that I've equated our present "speed" of time to the rotational speed of the Earth. There are many different things that measure time, but they all measure apparent time rather than absolute time, slowed by any gravitational interactions and by their speed of travel through the fabric of space (as well as the fabric of space's possible movement/expansion within another fabric [of which it may again be a part rather than content]).

There is no magic involved in my physics of the universe, there is only parlour tricks in your science, and not even good parlour tricks might I say, every thought experiment you think you have, I can discourse and show them to be fictional .

Quote
Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .

Quote
All you've done is put yourself in an irrational position and fool yourself into thinking you're the one who's got it all right, but when your "nothing" has properties and thereby reveals itself to be something rather than nothing, everyone can see your position as ridiculous (unless they have the same ridiculous beliefs, and some SR fans aren't that far away from your position, failing to understand that their beloved Spacetime is also a fabric (aether).

You will see in time. I am correct and the whole world is wrong, and no I am not deluded or have Dunning and Kruger or any such. I know how smart I am.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/05/2017 17:56:21
There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

The reason you've made this mistake is that you're thinking of the visual warping caused by looking at things moving at high speed relative to you, such as the railway sleepers which the railway track rests on - they are arranged perpendicular to the track, and we can extend them sideways to make them easier to see from inside the train, but let's also give the train a glass floor and glass walls so that we can see everything clearly. If we look at those lines, they will appear to curve with their leading point directly underneath us and then bend back as we follow them out to the sides, becoming straight lines once they're further away, pointing at some angle far behind the perpendicular. This is the warping you're thinking about, but it doesn't apply to things moving along with you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/05/2017 18:11:09
There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

The reason you've made this mistake is that you're thinking of the visual warping caused by looking at things moving at high speed relative to you, such as the railway sleepers which the railway track rests on - they are arranged perpendicular to the track, and we can extend them sideways to make them easier to see from inside the train, but let's also give the train a glass floor and glass walls so that we can see everything clearly. If we look at those lines, they will appear to curve with their leading point directly underneath us and then bend back as we follow them out to the sides, becoming straight lines once they're further away, pointing at some angle far behind the perpendicular. This is the warping you're thinking about, but it doesn't apply to things moving along with you.

I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

FYI 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/05/2017 18:19:37
Goc- For an object to physically contract the space around it would have to contract/expand also?

They are contracting the length of the object relative to space?

x1------------------------------------------------------

x2------------------------------------------------------

x1(space)=x2 (space)

Although I have used their parlour tricks to contract the length of the lines I can not contract the space thereafter x2

The red dots are just space beyond the black dots of length.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/05/2017 23:48:28
I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

If we're doing SR we can assert (irrationally) that there is no preferred frame of reference, so we only need to think about the frame of reference in which the track is stationary (let's call this frame X) and the frame of reference in which the train is stationary (which we can call frame Y). If we are working with frame X as our base, then the train is length contracted. If we are working with frame Y as our base, then the track is contracted.

If we're doing LET, we have a third frame to consider which is the preferred frame (which we can call frame Z). The speed at which the train and track move through frame Z determines how much they are actually contracted (in their direction of travel). We can still use frame X or Y as our base rather than Z (which is a frame we can't actually identify), but if we use frame X and say that the train is contracted for that frame, we are fully aware that the amount of contraction we calculate for the train almost certainly does not give us the true length of the train (which is almost certainly contracted to some degree in some direction). Switching the frame used as the base for our calculations has no effect whatsoever on the actual reality which is represented by frame Z (whose space fabric can never be contracted by anything moving through it - it is always the moving object that is contracted). We can use frame Z in thought experiments, but not in real-world experiments as we cannot identify it for those.

You should know ALL of that already and should not be making such objections.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 15/05/2017 12:03:54
There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?
Quote
You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.
Quote
Quote
While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/05/2017 12:18:48
I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

If we're doing SR we can assert (irrationally) that there is no preferred frame of reference, so we only need to think about the frame of reference in which the track is stationary (let's call this frame X) and the frame of reference in which the train is stationary (which we can call frame Y). If we are working with frame X as our base, then the train is length contracted. If we are working with frame Y as our base, then the track is contracted.

If we're doing LET, we have a third frame to consider which is the preferred frame (which we can call frame Z). The speed at which the train and track move through frame Z determines how much they are actually contracted (in their direction of travel). We can still use frame X or Y as our base rather than Z (which is a frame we can't actually identify), but if we use frame X and say that the train is contracted for that frame, we are fully aware that the amount of contraction we calculate for the train almost certainly does not give us the true length of the train (which is almost certainly contracted to some degree in some direction). Switching the frame used as the base for our calculations has no effect whatsoever on the actual reality which is represented by frame Z (whose space fabric can never be contracted by anything moving through it - it is always the moving object that is contracted). We can use frame Z in thought experiments, but not in real-world experiments as we cannot identify it for those.

You should know ALL of that already and should not be making such objections.

Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

p.s keep going on LET in the Let thread, I need to know more about the Lorentz field idea by your own words and others words.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/05/2017 12:26:54
Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.  A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track,
The train does not physically contract, do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached , the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path, the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 15/05/2017 17:28:35
My observations after visiting the "Magic Schoolbook" site.

Quote
Clocks are slowed by movement, but importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all: you can see that this must be the case because the light is still travelling through the fabric of space at its full normal speed.
__
The propagation speed of light in space is c, and it's independent of any moving object.
The actual time is what a local clock indicates.

Quote
During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it,
__
You stated previously "then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light,"

Quote
There is only one frame of reference which can be tied to the fabric of space, so its accounts are the ones which are true while all the other accounts are false.
__
Beginning with the hypothetical absolute rest frame, which experiences no time dilation and no length contraction, it can be shown that all moving inertial frames can be used as reference frames with the same equations describing the behavior of the universe. This results from the independence of light speed, which produces motion induced phenomena, time dilation and length contraction.

Quote
The way things work in LET results in it being impossible to tell if anything is moving or not: there is an absolute frame of reference which is tied to the fabric of space itself, but it cannot be identified because from where we are (inside the universe) all frames behave as if they might be that frame.
__
The universe as a complete entity has no external reference point for motion, thus by definition, it is not moving. Simple observation, near and distant, indicates a dynamic universe, thus the most realistic assumption is, everything is moving. If any frame can serve as a reference for motion, it greatly simplifies modeling the world with theories.
Think how complicated it would be to need to know where the center of the universe is, or where an absolute reference point is, before you could formulate the rules of physics.

Quote
Much more interesting though is what Einstein did with the nature of time, because he changed it into a dimension and in doing so turned the fabric of space into a four dimensional fabric called Spacetime.
__
He did not, Minkowski did when he expressed the coordinates in a general form. Something mathematicians like to do, make neat and tidy compact expressions.
A quote by A. Einstein:
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
His 1905 paper explicitly distinguishes time from spatial coordinates.
 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/05/2017 17:57:28
There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.

A correction to begin with: I think I was wrong in what I said about the appearance of the railway sleepers - I now suspect they would curve forwards rather than backwards, but that's another discussion.

What matters here though is that the bar connecting your trains will continue to appear perpendicular at all times as viewed by the people on the trains regardless of their speed of travel. If that wasn't the case, it would be dead easy to detect our movement through space as we could simply move along with a perpendicular bar and measure how much it appears to bend as we speed up and slow down, but that will produce a null result because no such bending will show up. Indeed, we could simply line up a camera on any point and watch for that point moving as the Earth moves through space at different speeds and angles.

On the issue of light coming from further away:-

Imagine two lasers in the right-hand train (train R), both in line with your bar which joins train R to train L. One laser is at the left-hand side of train R and the other laser is at the right hand side of train R. Both lasers are pointing along the bar towards train L, but they are at different heights so that the laser on the right doesn't shoot the laser on the left, so it shoots its light over it instead. This will burn two holes through train L, one a couple of inches above the other, and these holes will both run perpendicular through train L (as measured by someone on the train) even though the light path runs at 30 degrees to the perpendicular through space. The light from the laser on the right had further to go before it reached train L, but it followed the same path as the light from the laser on the left. The difference is that the light in the higher beam was emitted before the light in the lower beam at any point where you compare adjacent photons (one directly above the other). If we use less powerful lasers again so that we can look at the laser light from train L, we find that they appear to come from the same direction as each other (horizontally, but with a small height difference between them). Just as each laser sends the light at 30 degrees to the perpendicular even though it's pointed perpendicular to the train, the eye corrects the 30 degree angle back to zero degrees due to the way the eye moves between the light entering the iris and hitting the retina, so the observer on train L who is next to the rod will always see the lasers directly to his side, and the bar likewise - there is no visual shift of these things backwards.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/05/2017 18:26:34
[Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Why the "just no"? The preferred frame is the one in which the fabric of space is stationary (although there are complications due to the expansion of the universe, which means the preferred frame may shift as you move along, but you won't be able to handle that idea, so it would be best not to get into that here).

Quote
Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

Quite clearly, you can take the preferred frame of LET as your "0", so what's the big problem?

Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.

That description does not fit with your diagram. What you should have said, if your diagram is correct, is that a platform runs beside the tangent to a circular track, the middle of the platform directly adjacent to the track at the point of closest approach.

Quote
A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track.

(1) You haven't stated where your observer is. (2) There is only going to be visual length expansion if the observer is looking at the train from ahead, but the actual length-contraction acting on the train will compete against that. (3) the curve of the track will not affect the nearest carriage to the observer when it is aligned perpendicular to his angle of view, so he will not be distracted by this issue.

Quote
The train does not physically contract,

Which means you either have light clocks in the train disagreeing about the length of a second or you have light going faster than c, so you've got a defective model.

Quote
do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached ,

Length-contraction in relativity applies to things without needing to squish them - they do not feel compressed.

Quote
the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path,

And they aren't stretched either.

Quote
the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.

The problem with you has not changed - you don't take anything on board but keep on talking nonsense no matter how often you're shown the faults in your model, and the reason you do that is that you can't get your mind round all the details to sort them out and get a full picture of what's going on. All you have is a mess of ideas which you've tricked yourself into thinking you understand. There is only one thing that you should be working on if you want to get anywhere with this stuff, and that's working out how a light clock aligned with its direction of travel always keeps pace with an identical light clock moving along with it which is aligned across its direction of travel. If you can get them to tick at the same rate without length-contracting one of the light clocks or having light travel faster than c for one of the light clocks, you will likely win a Nobel prize.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/05/2017 18:51:04
My observations after visiting the "Magic Schoolbook" site.

The propagation speed of light in space is c, and it's independent of any moving object.
The actual time is what a local clock indicates.

Local clocks measure apparent time rather than actual time. Any speed of movement of the clock through space will slow it, and its own mass will also slow it, so no clock can be built that measures absolute time.

Quote
Quote
During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it,
__
You stated previously "then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light,"

It returns at 0.866c relative to the Earth, but because the Earth is moving through space at 0.866c in the same direction, that means the rocket must travel at 0.99c through space.

Quote
Quote
There is only one frame of reference which can be tied to the fabric of space, so its accounts are the ones which are true while all the other accounts are false.
__
Beginning with the hypothetical absolute rest frame, which experiences no time dilation and no length contraction, it can be shown that all moving inertial frames can be used as reference frames with the same equations describing the behavior of the universe. This results from the independence of light speed, which produces motion induced phenomena, time dilation and length contraction.

Yes - from our point of view they all behave as if they are the preferred frame, but only one of them can actually be the preferred frame.

Quote
The universe as a complete entity has no external reference point for motion, thus by definition, it is not moving.

We can't tell if the universe is moving, but we shouldn't assume it isn't moving through some other kind of space (or expanding within another kind of space).

Quote
Simple observation, near and distant, indicates a dynamic universe, thus the most realistic assumption is, everything is moving. If any frame can serve as a reference for motion, it greatly simplifies modeling the world with theories.

Not when it generates contradictions. There has to be a rational mechanism behind what happens, and you can't have the same acceleration of a clock cause it both to tick faster and to tick slower. The accounts of events generated by using different frames of reference contradict each other, so they cannot all be correct.

Quote
Think how complicated it would be to need to know where the center of the universe is, or where an absolute reference point is, before you could formulate the rules of physics.

You don't need to pin a preferred frame down to formulate the rules of physics. LET manages to do it without identifying it.

Quote
Quote
Much more interesting though is what Einstein did with the nature of time, because he changed it into a dimension and in doing so turned the fabric of space into a four dimensional fabric called Spacetime.
__
He did not, Minkowski did when he expressed the coordinates in a general form. Something mathematicians like to do, make neat and tidy compact expressions.
A quote by A. Einstein:
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
His 1905 paper explicitly distinguishes time from spatial coordinates.

That's a complication which I avoided going into on the basis that those who know the details would recognise that it's unimportant, but I think I should edit it to mention it as a side issue. The problem is that the Spacetime model that's presented almost everywhere and attributed to Einstein is the one I've described, and the reason for that is simple - he's mixing incompatible models to hedge his bets, and one of the models he's trying to build his compound mess out of is LET.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/05/2017 19:28:30
[Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Why the "just no"? The preferred frame is the one in which the fabric of space is stationary (although there are complications due to the expansion of the universe, which means the preferred frame may shift as you move along, but you won't be able to handle that idea, so it would be best not to get into that here).

Quote
Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

Quite clearly, you can take the preferred frame of LET as your "0", so what's the big problem?

Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.

That description does not fit with your diagram. What you should have said, if your diagram is correct, is that a platform runs beside the tangent to a circular track, the middle of the platform directly adjacent to the track at the point of closest approach.

Quote
A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track.

(1) You haven't stated where your observer is. (2) There is only going to be visual length expansion if the observer is looking at the train from ahead, but the actual length-contraction acting on the train will compete against that. (3) the curve of the track will not affect the nearest carriage to the observer when it is aligned perpendicular to his angle of view, so he will not be distracted by this issue.

Quote
The train does not physically contract,

Which means you either have light clocks in the train disagreeing about the length of a second or you have light going faster than c, so you've got a defective model.

Quote
do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached ,

Length-contraction in relativity applies to things without needing to squish them - they do not feel compressed.

Quote
the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path,

And they aren't stretched either.

Quote
the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.

The problem with you has not changed - you don't take anything on board but keep on talking nonsense no matter how often you're shown the faults in your model, and the reason you do that is that you can't get your mind round all the details to sort them out and get a full picture of what's going on. All you have is a mess of ideas which you've tricked yourself into thinking you understand. There is only one thing that you should be working on if you want to get anywhere with this stuff, and that's working out how a light clock aligned with its direction of travel always keeps pace with an identical light clock moving along with it which is aligned across its direction of travel. If you can get them to tick at the same rate without length-contracting one of the light clocks or having light travel faster than c for one of the light clocks, you will likely win a Nobel prize.

Firstly, there is no problem with me, I took everything on board and in my reality things ''add'' up to accurate information and not parlour tricks.   The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train. The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.
There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic? 

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 00:55:36
The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train.

A carriage in the middle will look longer than a carriage near the end, so a distant observer who looks carefully will not be fooled.

Quote
The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.

You're back to the blurring issue again which has been dealt with before. Take photos with a camera with a high enough shutter speed to remove the blur and stop relying on your monkey vision.
 
Quote
There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

The forces that lead to the contraction are all internal ones which make the atoms settle closer together as the speed goes up - it is not compressed, but contracted without stress.

Quote
Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic?

Length-contraction comes from Fitzgerald and Lorentz rather than Einstein, and it's necessary to account for the MMX null result. As I've told you already, until you explore that properly, you'll continue to be nothing more than a tiresome ignoramus who fills threads that he can't understand with worthless junk. You should really be banned from posting in any threads that you haven't started because there's nothing to be gained by anyone conversing with you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 16/05/2017 11:56:43

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.
Quote
A correction to begin with: I think I was wrong in what I said about the appearance of the railway sleepers - I now suspect they would curve forwards rather than backwards, but that's another discussion.

There is no curve in light for SR (ok my SR). There is no momentum for light. Light is independent of the source. Einstein was incorrect to say space and time are separate. Events in space is on the LET side of the equation. Mass does not control the event space controls the events position where light is not independent of the space source position. You are doing some hybrid of independent of the source.
Quote
What matters here though is that the bar connecting your trains will continue to appear perpendicular at all times as viewed by the people on the trains regardless of their speed of travel.
Something will appear as a perpendicular view but it will not be a 90 degree view. It will be the forward image created by reflection of 90 degrees that you arrive to view. our laser perpendicular will bend backwards to hit a position further back on the opposite train. Independence of the source.
Quote
If that wasn't the case, it would be dead easy to detect our movement through space as we could simply move along with a perpendicular bar and measure how much it appears to bend as we speed up and slow down,
Yes but how could we test that? Is our view of perpendicular really perpendicular?
Quote
but that will produce a null result because no such bending will show up. Indeed, we could simply line up a camera on any point and watch for that point moving as the Earth moves through space at different speeds and angles.
There would be no bending. It would just appear as an angle.
Quote
On the issue of light coming from further away:-

Imagine two lasers in the right-hand train (train R), both in line with your bar which joins train R to train L. One laser is at the left-hand side of train R and the other laser is at the right hand side of train R. Both lasers are pointing along the bar towards train L, but they are at different heights so that the laser on the right doesn't shoot the laser on the left, so it shoots its light over it instead. This will burn two holes through train L, one a couple of inches above the other, and these holes will both run perpendicular through train L (as measured by someone on the train) even though the light path runs at 30 degrees to the perpendicular through space. The light from the laser on the right had further to go before it reached train L, but it followed the same path as the light from the laser on the left. The difference is that the light in the higher beam was emitted before the light in the lower beam at any point where you compare adjacent photons (one directly above the other). If we use less powerful lasers again so that we can look at the laser light from train L, we find that they appear to come from the same direction as each other (horizontally, but with a small height difference between them). Just as each laser sends the light at 30 degrees to the perpendicular even though it's pointed perpendicular to the train, the eye corrects the 30 degree angle back to zero degrees due to the way the eye moves between the light entering the iris and hitting the retina, so the observer on train L who is next to the rod will always see the lasers directly to his side, and the bar likewise - there is no visual shift of these things backwards.
The image is coming from a forward position you catch up to and the laser hits a position behind where you aim perpendicular. The view is always from a past position. Light does not have momentum.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/05/2017 14:49:46
The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train.

A carriage in the middle will look longer than a carriage near the end, so a distant observer who looks carefully will not be fooled.

Quote
The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.

You're back to the blurring issue again which has been dealt with before. Take photos with a camera with a high enough shutter speed to remove the blur and stop relying on your monkey vision.
 
Quote
There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

The forces that lead to the contraction are all internal ones which make the atoms settle closer together as the speed goes up - it is not compressed, but contracted without stress.

Quote
Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic?

Length-contraction comes from Fitzgerald and Lorentz rather than Einstein, and it's necessary to account for the MMX null result. As I've told you already, until you explore that properly, you'll continue to be nothing more than a tiresome ignoramus who fills threads that he can't understand with worthless junk. You should really be banned from posting in any threads that you haven't started because there's nothing to be gained by anyone conversing with you.

An object contracts through stress levels?  How quaint , what stress levels?  you are wrong.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 17:46:03
An object contracts through stress levels?  How quaint , what stress levels?  you are wrong.

Are you a chat bot? Where did you get these "stress levels" from? I'm beginning to suspect you don't speak English at all and you're doing everything through Google Translate from Japanese.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 18:31:54
While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you.

Click on attached image to see the detail properly. Two lasers (the rectangles) are moving to the right. Light is being sent from the top of them when they are shown as A and B, exiting the bottom of those same lasers when they are shown as C and D. E shows the lower laser again later with light still again coming out of it.

At the bottom of the picture, an eye (a circle) is moving to the right, and we see the same eye four times. F and G show it with light entering it, while H and I show light (which entered the eye when it was at F and G) reaching the retina. The point at which the light hits the retina guarantees that the observer sees the laser perpendicular to the direction of movement of the co-moving trains (which these lasers and eye are travelling in).

You need to study this carefully and reassess your ideas about how things appear in situations of this kind. Note that you see the lower laser at D before you see it at E, and when you see it at E, you see the higher laser directly in line with it when it was at C - yes the light takes longer to reach your eye from that laser, but you see it on the same line as the nearer laser, and you see that line as being perpendicular to your direction of travel.

Quote
If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction.

No. You're still mauling this. The length-contraction acting on the train is not visible to people on the train in any way and they see no distortion on anything co-moving with them at all.

Quote
There is no curve in light for SR (ok my SR).

If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 17/05/2017 11:56:21
If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.
Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed. How can you as a reasonable scientist claim to see 30 degrees off of a 90 degree physical position be viewed as perpendicular? Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.
While clocks oriented in any direction under half the speed of light coincide with the Lorentz contraction for the angle of view using plain geometry above that speed can not be tested with a clock. Math can go where reality cannot so we cannot depend on math to prove a point above our ability to test a theory. The angle of view fits the Lorentz contraction without physical contraction in SR. 30 degrees off of 90 is not a perpendicular view. The perpendicular view is the forward image that reaches your 90 degree position with vector velocity.

How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?

120 degrees is not 90 degrees.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2017 13:18:57
If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.
Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed.

Light permeates isotropic in a linearity, there are no angles of light, the ''angles'' are subjective interpretation of geometrical position relative to light source. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 17/05/2017 17:58:59
Or angle from the image of an object. My point was a 120 degree angle will not be a 90 degree angle of view. If that is what's necessary for a theory of physical contraction vs. the same contraction by proper angle of view I am going with the angle of view causing the contraction.

There is no proof for physical contraction even with Muons. That is a reaction rate issue for the energy being slow to react. ~ 2% available energy to react vs. 98% used for velocity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 17/05/2017 18:24:44
If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.
Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed. How can you as a reasonable scientist claim to see 30 degrees off of a 90 degree physical position be viewed as perpendicular?

Why quote the bit you have and then talk about something different? If we're actually looking at the bit in the quote, light does indeed go out as a sphere from every point being viewed, and the part you see at any point in time depends on where your eye is within that sphere. The direction in which you see the part of an object from which a particular photon hits your retina depends on where on the retina it lands. Light coming to you on a path perpendicular to the track will enter through the iris, the eye will move, and then it will hit the retina further back, leading you to see that light as if it came from some angle ahead rather then the perpendicular path it actually came along. If you're looking at the train running parallel to you, any light that follows a perpendicular path between the trains (meaning genuinely perpendicular, following the lines of the sleepers), will have to come from further ahead. That light set out when the train you're looking at was further back with the part you're looking at directly to the side of where you are now, but the part you're looking at is by this time some way ahead, and you will see it as being some way ahead too, just as if you're looking straight at it on an angled path. But while you're seeing it where it actually is, you're seeing it as it was when it was further back but in the position where it now is.

Importantly though, when I was dealing with lasers, there is no sphere of light - there is only a narrow beam which doesn't widen over distance. My diagram showed you exactly how it works.

Quote
Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.

You are just repeating nonsense - where did you learn it? It's codswallop! The view of the other train from each train is completely undistorted at all speeds. It's only the view of things that aren't co-moving with you that look distorted to you, and my diagram shows you exactly why that is. If the light enters your iris and hits the middle of your retina, you will see that light as coming from the direction your eye is pointing in and not whatever direction it might actually have came from. The light leaves the laser at an angle that is different from the direction the laser is pointing in, and it enters the eye at a different angle from the angle the eye perceives it as having come from (for exactly the same reason as it doesn't follow the alignment of the laser).

Quote
While clocks oriented in any direction under half the speed of light coincide with the Lorentz contraction for the angle of view using plain geometry above that speed can not be tested with a clock. Math can go where reality cannot so we cannot depend on math to prove a point above our ability to test a theory. The angle of view fits the Lorentz contraction without physical contraction in SR. 30 degrees off of 90 is not a perpendicular view. The perpendicular view is the forward image that reaches your 90 degree position with vector velocity.

The MMX moves sufficiently fast through space for a lack of contraction to produce a result other than the null result, so reality has tested this already and shown that there is real contraction. It is not visual contraction, and your beliefs about how things appear are wildly wrong. I don't know where you picked up your knowledge, but if you didn't misunderstand what you read there, it must be one hell of a woeful site.

Quote
How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?

You can't convince religious people of anything - they just stick to their position no matter how irrational it is. I've shown you that without actual length-contraction you either have an MMX that doesn't produce the null result that it always comes up with, or you have light moving faster than the speed of light and should be able to use that to demonstrate superluminal communication. I have led the horse to water and it is not my responsibility if it dies of thirst.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 18/05/2017 11:58:05
Why quote the bit you have and then talk about something different? If we're actually looking at the bit in the quote, light does indeed go out as a sphere from every point being viewed, and the part you see at any point in time depends on where your eye is within that sphere. The direction in which you see the part of an object from which a particular photon hits your retina depends on where on the retina it lands. Light coming to you on a path perpendicular to the track will enter through the iris, the eye will move, and then it will hit the retina further back, leading you to see that light as if it came from some angle ahead rather then the perpendicular path it actually came along. If you're looking at the train running parallel to you, any light that follows a perpendicular path between the trains (meaning genuinely perpendicular, following the lines of the sleepers), will have to come from further ahead. That light set out when the train you're looking at was further back with the part you're looking at directly to the side of where you are now, but the part you're looking at is by this time some way ahead, and you will see it as being some way ahead too, just as if you're looking straight at it on an angled path. But while you're seeing it where it actually is, you're seeing it as it was when it was further back but in the position where it now is.

Then the angle of view gives you the contracted view and you can never see it where it exists physically. Rather than an observer lets consider a nano second shutter exposure or less. There will be no retina issues to confuse physical vs. visual contraction by the angle of view. If your view is the front of the other train at relative rest there is no further forward position as you increase speed only simultaneity of relativity which puts the view of the train in back of your position.

Quote
Importantly though, when I was dealing with lasers, there is no sphere of light - there is only a narrow beam which doesn't widen over distance. My diagram showed you exactly how it works.
It does widen with distance say to the moon
GOC
Quote
Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.
David
Quote
You are just repeating nonsense - where did you learn it? It's codswallop! The view of the other train from each train is completely undistorted at all speeds. It's only the view of things that aren't co-moving with you that look distorted to you, and my diagram shows you exactly why that is. If the light enters your iris and hits the middle of your retina, you will see that light as coming from the direction your eye is pointing in and not whatever direction it might actually have came from. The light leaves the laser at an angle that is different from the direction the laser is pointing in, and it enters the eye at a different angle from the angle the eye perceives it as having come from (for exactly the same reason as it doesn't follow the alignment of the laser).
The laser can not go perpendicular at relativistic speeds because light does not have momentum. Light is independent of the source. The train being the source and the position in space event being independent of the train. That codswallop is the postulate of Relativity.
Quote
The MMX moves sufficiently fast through space for a lack of contraction to produce a result other than the null result, so reality has tested this already and shown that there is real contraction. It is not visual contraction, and your beliefs about how things appear are wildly wrong. I don't know where you picked up your knowledge, but if you didn't misunderstand what you read there, it must be one hell of a woeful site.

I do not need a site for an explanation. It just logic of the postulates with an understanding the relativity math is correct while the reasons you are applying to the equations are incorrect. There is no momentum in light.

Quote
How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?
Quote
You can't convince religious people of anything - they just stick to their position no matter how irrational it is. I've shown you that without actual length-contraction you either have an MMX that doesn't produce the null result that it always comes up with, or you have light moving faster than the speed of light and should be able to use that to demonstrate superluminal communication. I have led the horse to water and it is not my responsibility if it dies of thirst.
Your explanation for a null result is not the only explanation. Light does not contract and motion compensates its distance in every direction. That is why a clock in any orientation ticks at the same rate. Are you thirsty yet?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 18/05/2017 16:49:22
You've been given plenty to work with and I'm not going to add to it. What is already here will remain here and it says it all.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 19/05/2017 12:37:52
Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2017 13:52:27
Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.
I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

P.s @David:Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/05/2017 17:10:45
Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.
I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

It doesn't work that way - I showed that you either need to have actual length-contraction or you have to allow light to go faster than c. Two people incapable of taking that on board when a third person shows them how it works does not make the two right - it is not a democratic system, but one of reason, and reason is something the two can't handle. Neither of you are able to explain how you keep two light clocks in a train ticking at the same rate when one is aligned with the direction of travel of the train and the other is aligned perpendicular to it. You both maintain your state of ignorance by steadfastly refusing to explore that and by ignoring the numbers that I've given you to show that you're wrong. How long does it take for the light to get from the back of the 10cm-long carriage to the front if you don't length-contract the carriage? How long does it take to get back? What's the total time? If the perpendicular light clock is also 10cm long (it would stick out the side of the carriage, but that's okay), how long does light take to do a round trip on that? Pick a speed and crunch the numbers. Until you do that, you have no credibility whatsoever. Do you understand how ridiculous the pair of you look when you refuse to check even the most basic aspects of relativity?

Quote
Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.

I'll be happy to explore that in detail AFTER you give me numbers to show that length-contraction isn't needed for the light clock in the carriage (the one that sends light from the back end of the carriage to the front end and back again). Prove to me that you're capable of doing real science.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2017 17:57:24
Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.
I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

It doesn't work that way - I showed that you either need to have actual length-contraction or you have to allow light to go faster than c. Two people incapable of taking that on board when a third person shows them how it works does not make the two right - it is not a democratic system, but one of reason, and reason is something the two can't handle. Neither of you are able to explain how you keep two light clocks in a train ticking at the same rate when one is aligned with the direction of travel of the train and the other is aligned perpendicular to it. You both maintain your state of ignorance by steadfastly refusing to explore that and by ignoring the numbers that I've given you to show that you're wrong. How long does it take for the light to get from the back of the 10cm-long carriage to the front if you don't length-contract the carriage? How long does it take to get back? What's the total time? If the perpendicular light clock is also 10cm long (it would stick out the side of the carriage, but that's okay), how long does light take to do a round trip on that? Pick a speed and crunch the numbers. Until you do that, you have no credibility whatsoever. Do you understand how ridiculous the pair of you look when you refuse to check even the most basic aspects of relativity?

Quote
Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.

I'll be happy to explore that in detail AFTER you give me numbers to show that length-contraction isn't needed for the light clock in the carriage (the one that sends light from the back end of the carriage to the front end and back again). Prove to me that you're capable of doing real science.

Ok, that ''knocked'' me back a bit. Can you please find me a video on youtube that shows the example of light you are on about?

Then I will answer the ''problem'' and become a ''masterclass'' in science just for you :D

added - ok I have drawn you , your explanation, The two lines represent the length of the train carriage, between the lines light is permeating isotropic as you can see.

What would you like to  know?

Or what are you saying happens?
* ctrain.jpg (9.71 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4392 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 19/05/2017 18:08:39
David,

   The technology is not available to accelerate mass at relativistic speeds (except for a few atoms so the relativistic speeds are not verified in the range you are discussing. But for half the speed of light at a 30 degree angle the view is contracted by 0.866025 in plain geometry. Your idea about the lens in your eye reproducing the perpendicular view is very unlikely. So we have a visual length contraction by the angle of view exactly the same as what you suggest is the physical length contraction. We already have the visual contraction so we also have a physical contraction? Above half the speed of light clock direction could be important for tick rate. But physical contraction is extremely unlikely since up to half the speed of light is a visual contraction by the postulates of relativity using plain geometry of light being independent of the source.

You were not clear on that point. Do you disagree that a angle of view different from perpendicular is visually shorter?
Avoidance of that question suggests you are not willing to go down the logic route in favor of your beliefs.

If up to half the speed of light is visual there is no logic to the other half being physical. Relativity has a linearity issue with direction of mass to light above half the speed of light.

the box

Physics does not care if we have an accurate understanding or not. A vote will not change physics only the minds of the followers of their view. The BB had a vote of 12 to one in favor of the BB theory. BH's prove the existence of the universe much older than 13.6 billion years.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2017 18:14:22
David,

   The technology is not available to accelerate mass at relativistic speeds (except for a few atoms so the relativistic speeds are not verified in the range you are discussing. But for half the speed of light at a 30 degree angle the view is contracted by 0.866025 in plain geometry. Your idea about the lens in your eye reproducing the perpendicular view is very unlikely. So we have a visual length contraction by the angle of view exactly the same as what you suggest is the physical length contraction. We already have the visual contraction so we also have a physical contraction? Above half the speed of light clock direction could be important for tick rate. But physical contraction is extremely unlikely since up to half the speed of light is a visual contraction by the postulates of relativity using plain geometry of light being independent of the source.

You were not clear on that point. Do you disagree that a angle of view different from perpendicular is visually shorter?
Avoidance of that question suggests you are not willing to go down the logic route in favor of your beliefs.

If up to half the speed of light is visual there is no logic to the other half being physical. Relativity has a linearity issue with direction of mass to light above half the speed of light.

the box

Physics does not care if we have an accurate understanding or not. A vote will not change physics only the minds of the followers of their view. The BB had a vote of 12 to one in favor of the BB theory. BH's prove the existence of the universe much older than 13.6 billion years.

Would 13.6 billion years be based on our calendar?   If so problem because that would equal earths orbit of the Sun time.


P.s Obviously they didn't have a random ''jury'' when voting on the BB. A scientific ''jury'' may be biased.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2017 18:25:57
I wonder if ''they'' are going to be smart enough to realise that I am using the very pixels of your screen you are viewing naked Science on, to accurately show the nature of light and to try to get ''them'' to realise the errors in ''their'' wisdom and thoughts!


I predict David is going to suggest an imaginary light beam or ''photon'' travelling left to right and vice versus, however then we need to add a medium that can reflect the light so we can actually observe the beam/''photon'' travelling left to right and vice versus.
However David will not account that the 2d interpretation of the thought , the light from the screen and laser or beam or photon is travelling also directly at your eyes.

* ctrain1.jpg (60.28 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4404 times)

David does not ''see'' this until now!

So David anything to  add?  because we all know light travelling vector x is equal to light travelling vector y when c is constant.

* dc.jpg (33.8 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4409 times)








Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/05/2017 19:44:20
GoC and Box

You both need to crunch the numbers properly. The speeds of travel I've used for examples are deliberately huge in order to make diagrams show angle differences that at slower speeds wouldn't show up unless you were to make the diagrams as big as a planet. But the numbers can also be crunched for lower speeds, such as the speed the speed of a lab sitting on a rotating Earth as it orbits the sun - that is what the MMX used and it had to change it's physical length in order to produce the null result. If you want to work with appropriate numbers for that, feel free to do so. Light cannot make the round trip on an uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel as quickly as on a light clock perpendicular to it, and so long as you remain in denial on that point, you are just going to go on blocking your own progress so that you can dig in and go on spouting nonsense. It is not my job to sort out your problems though - I have more important priorities.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/05/2017 20:20:42
30 km/s (or 67,000 mph) is the speed you want to work with. Move the train at that speed and work out how long light will take to make a round trip in a 10cm light clock in the train aligned in the direction of travel and how long light will take to do the same thing on an identical light clock aligned perpendicular to the train. You should already realise though that if length-contraction is necessary at 0.867c, 0.5c, 0.1c, etc. it will still be necessary at 0.0001c.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2017 13:18:27
30 km/s (or 67,000 mph) is the speed you want to work with. Move the train at that speed and work out how long light will take to make a round trip in a 10cm light clock in the train aligned in the direction of travel and how long light will take to do the same thing on an identical light clock aligned perpendicular to the train. You should already realise though that if length-contraction is necessary at 0.867c, 0.5c, 0.1c, etc. it will still be necessary at 0.0001c.

Why do you think length contraction is necessary ?  I actually think the ''parlour'' trick means nothing.  You are trying to get myself and Goc to accept force belief by including parlour tricks.  You are being subjective by your education and forced educational belief.
What you need to understand is that what works in science is not necessarily interpreted correctly. The maths always work because the maths was made to fit the process, the process comes first.

You quite clearly are not thinking about anything I have just put, you have not even explained to  me your ''question'', I am second guessing you at the moment.
I can tell you now that all ''your'' thought experiments involving light are incorrect.

Please tell me why we should believe your subjective interpretation when our objective interpretations say you are incorrect?

Now maybe if you discussed what we are saying instead of thinking that what you think is right, then maybe yourself will see why it is incorrect.

To think up anything it is always easier to work with the smallest measurement, so I will discuss your train in simple form.

The train carriage L=299 792 458m

0m____________________________299 792 458 m

Light takes 1 second to travel left to right and 1 second to travel right to left at a constant of 299 792 458 m / s

Do you disagree with any of that?

The rest length of the carriage is 299 792 458 m

The length of the carriage in motion is 299 792 458 m

Do you disagree with any of that?

* c2.jpg (23.32 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4348 times)


Then If you look at the previous diagram of the distance contraction, this is what your interpretation mistake is.  The trains rear moves ''forward'' , the light takes less time to get there than previous train rear position.

Relative correctness

* c3.jpg (30.4 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4346 times)

* radio.jpg (31.79 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4336 times)


p.s So David if you want to lock horns in battle with me, you need a lot more than subjective interpretation that fails on every level.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/05/2017 14:34:19
David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction. Your point about the math is not at issue. I agree with the Lorentz contraction along with the physical consequences for view and change in clock tick rate. Up to half the speed of light any orientation of the mirrors in the light clock allow the same tick rate. Scientists like yourself are confusing contraction of view as the reason for a slower tick rate by physically contracting the clock. There is no mechanism to physically contract the clock. Only math that follows observations. Math is never the cause of physics but that is what you are claiming by physical object contraction.

I know you have the intelligence to understand plain geometry but you have a block that will not let you confirm the math of light being finite and independent of the source. You e en made up something about the iris in the eyes so you could remain faithful to what you were incorrectly taught. I was taught the same thing but rather than a follower I have to work out these issues for myself. When I did following the relativity postulates showed a visual contraction rather than a physical contraction. You need to think for yourself rather than let others think for you. Most scientists just go with their programing. Half the speed of light should be the easiest to understand for most scientists. The box showed you the diagram of event position in space relative to an objects velocity at 180 degrees. You are just going to confuse yourself using laser light so we are using normal imaging where you can view an image in all  positions and the image light goes in all angles. For instance a bulb lights up a room and you can view the light from any angle in that room.

Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view? Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object. So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length. Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity. We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2. But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6. We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

Unless of course you are not following relativity's postulates.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2017 15:28:56
David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction. Your point about the math is not at issue. I agree with the Lorentz contraction along with the physical consequences for view and change in clock tick rate. Up to half the speed of light any orientation of the mirrors in the light clock allow the same tick rate. Scientists like yourself are confusing contraction of view as the reason for a slower tick rate by physically contracting the clock. There is no mechanism to physically contract the clock. Only math that follows observations. Math is never the cause of physics but that is what you are claiming by physical object contraction.

I know you have the intelligence to understand plain geometry but you have a block that will not let you confirm the math of light being finite and independent of the source. You e en made up something about the iris in the eyes so you could remain faithful to what you were incorrectly taught. I was taught the same thing but rather than a follower I have to work out these issues for myself. When I did following the relativity postulates showed a visual contraction rather than a physical contraction. You need to think for yourself rather than let others think for you. Most scientists just go with their programing. Half the speed of light should be the easiest to understand for most scientists. The box showed you the diagram of event position in space relative to an objects velocity at 180 degrees. You are just going to confuse yourself using laser light so we are using normal imaging where you can view an image in all  positions and the image light goes in all angles. For instance a bulb lights up a room and you can view the light from any angle in that room.

Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view? Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object. So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length. Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity. We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2. But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6. We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

Unless of course you are not following relativity's postulates.

Thank you Goc, your understanding is also very good. 

However you must try to see past what an angle actual is .  An angle is not actually an angle , it is always a linearity and either 0 degrees or 360 degrees relative to observer and observed. Space has no direction , angles are always a linearity but angled relative to something else.

I will show you this in very simple form .

* angle1.jpg (39.08 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4301 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/05/2017 15:37:55
Light always travels linear but an object's view is always relative to the angle of view. To understand take a coin and rotate the angle for visual length. That is all I am talking about as an images visual length.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2017 15:47:38
Light always travels linear but an object's view is always relative to the angle of view. To understand take a coin and rotate the angle for visual length. That is all I am talking about as an images visual length.
  Yes I understand what you are talking about, let me add your coin view as a good example.

* bw.jpg (32.22 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4292 times)

I am now trying to help you extend on your thoughts, look at my side by side previous diagrams, focus diagram 1 as a whole observing relative angle .

Observe diagram 2 by only looking at one of the points a,b.c, or d, notice there is no angle if you observe each point individually.

(The background is never angled relative to anything.Things are only angled relative to each other and the reference frame background being your constant frame).

p.s the observer is always at the center of determining angles relative to themselves and other bodies (0)



* 0.jpg (32.98 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4307 times)

added note- spheres do not  visually contract when rotating, they retain their diameter! However their circumference visually contracts as they recede from an observer.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2017 16:16:07
Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view? Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object. So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length. Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity. We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2. But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6. We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

Unless of course you are not following relativity's postulates.

Goc in your example you are doing the same exact same thing as they are doing ignoring your own relative correctness that light permeates isotropic and the view you are creating by observer affect of adding mirrors and angling the path is not the natural nature of light and subjective ''parlour tricks''.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/05/2017 19:15:38
Then If you look at the previous diagram of the distance contraction, this is what your interpretation mistake is.  The trains rear moves ''forward'' , the light takes less time to get there than previous train rear position.

p.s So David if you want to lock horns in battle with me, you need a lot more than subjective interpretation that fails on every level.

You have shown me the light going from the front of the carriage to the rear. Where is your analysis of light going from the rear to the front? Where is your analysis of the time taken for the round trip (with the rear to front and front to rear parts added together)? If you ever get to the point where you do the job proplerly, you will find that your light has to go faster than c to complete the round trip in the required time unless you contract the length of the train.

And to do the job properly, you need to do the same job for the perpendicular light clock too so that you can compare how long it takes for light to complete the round trip on both light clocks. The times will not match unless you either introduce actual length-contraction or have light move faster than c.

Until you do that and take the results on board, you will continue to be doing pseudo-science rather than the real thing.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2017 19:45:12
Then If you look at the previous diagram of the distance contraction, this is what your interpretation mistake is.  The trains rear moves ''forward'' , the light takes less time to get there than previous train rear position.

p.s So David if you want to lock horns in battle with me, you need a lot more than subjective interpretation that fails on every level.

You have shown me the light going from the front of the carriage to the rear. Where is your analysis of light going from the rear to the front? Where is your analysis of the time taken for the round trip (with the rear to front and front to rear parts added together)? If you ever get to the point where you do the job proplerly, you will find that your light has to go faster than c to complete the round trip in the required time unless you contract the length of the train.

And to do the job properly, you need to do the same job for the perpendicular light clock too so that you can compare how long it takes for light to complete the round trip on both light clocks. The times will not match unless you either introduce actual length-contraction or have light move faster than c.

Until you do that and take the results on board, you will continue to be doing pseudo-science rather than the real thing.

Complete garbage , you can mirror the diagram for the other direction if you like but the result is still the same, you quite clearly do not understand anything except what education learned you. The light does not have to go faster, where on earth did you get that notion from?

Do you not understand the very simple diagrams of the rear and front of the carriage displacement relative to where and when the light was emitted?

That is your contraction you don't understand.

The light takes 2 seconds for the round trip, the carriage does not even need be there because light can pass right through the carriage .
* c4.jpg (24.07 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4407 times)





Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/05/2017 23:42:41
David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction.

What you mean is, he too misunderstands length-contraction.

Quote
Your point about the math is not at issue. I agree with the Lorentz contraction along with the physical consequences for view and change in clock tick rate. Up to half the speed of light any orientation of the mirrors in the light clock allow the same tick rate.

You don't even appear to understand half of it. There is nothing different about things going under half the speed of light to differentiate it from things going faster than that speed. There is a slowing of clocks moving at all non-zero speeds through space and there needs to be length contraction in the direction of travel at all non-zero speeds to keep a pair of light clocks ticking at the same rate. In the case of the MMX (which is equivalent to a pair of light clocks) the length contraction on the biggest MMX experiment done to date was a micron. A micron is huge - it takes 10,000 atoms in the material of the apparatus to span it. The direction of travel of the apparatus consistently shortened the arms by up to that amount as required to maintain a null result at all times. For the laws of physics to coordinate things with such precision at 30km/s it is not credible to think that it then throws away the mechanism for higher speeds to rely on voodoo instead (so that light can travel faster than c).

Quote
Scientists like yourself are confusing contraction of view as the reason for a slower tick rate by physically contracting the clock. There is no mechanism to physically contract the clock. Only math that follows observations. Math is never the cause of physics but that is what you are claiming by physical object contraction.

Length-contraction is not needed to slow the perpendicular light clock (perpendicular to its direction of movement through space). The longer path for light to travel to complete a tick on the perpendicular clock ties in exactly with how much the clock slows as you move it through space. Length-contraction is needed on the other clock aligned with its direction of travel, and without it you're sunk.

Quote
I know you have the intelligence to understand plain geometry but you have a block that will not let you confirm the math of light being finite and independent of the source.

The block is all yours - you steadfastly refuse to challenge your existing beliefs, but instead you dig in to defend them.

Quote
You even made up something about the iris in the eyes so you could remain faithful to what you were incorrectly taught. I was taught the same thing but rather than a follower I have to work out these issues for myself.

I wasn't taught most of it, but worked it out for myself too. Fortunately I got the details right where you went wrong, which is why what I showed you in the diagram works whereas your magical ideas don't match up to reality. You have invented a whole stack of visual distortions that don't exist in this universe.

Quote
When I did following the relativity postulates showed a visual contraction rather than a physical contraction.

You fooled yourself into thinking that, and you're so emotionally tied to your creation that you refuse to recognise that it doesn't fit the real world.

Quote
You need to think for yourself rather than let others think for you.

Do I sound like someone who lets other people think for me? If I was, I'd be pushing SR and chanting establishment mantras. You're the most bizarre person I've ever encountered though, because you are actually going around backing up SR on the basis of the most extraordinary pile of pants of your own invention which barely has anything in common with SR at all.

Quote
Most scientists just go with their programing. Half the speed of light should be the easiest to understand for most scientists. The box showed you the diagram of event position in space relative to an objects velocity at 180 degrees. You are just going to confuse yourself using laser light so we are using normal imaging where you can view an image in all  positions and the image light goes in all angles. For instance a bulb lights up a room and you can view the light from any angle in that room.

Perhaps if you used a circle of outward-pointing lasers, you'd have a better understanding of how light actually behaves. Each beam can be thought of as representing the journey of a photon. By thinking down this route, you might be able to stop confusing yourself with what happens when you lump them all together and call it a sphere of expanding light.

Quote
Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Lovely - just like the vertical arm on my interactive MMX demonstrations (a different speed, but working on the exact same rules), so what makes you think I do things differently for the perpendicular case?

Quote
Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view?

But here's the point where we diverge. You now go into some voodoo where you misinterpret what's going on. The angle the light goes at simply increases the distance it has to move through space to travel from one mirror to the other and back, and that extra distance the light has to travel means that the light takes longer to get from one mirror to the other and back, and the clock ticks are therefore more spaced out in time. That is all that happens to make the clock run slow - the light runs at full speed in the clock but the tick rate of the clock is slower due to the delay from the extra distance travelled by the light.

Quote
Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object.

And your voodoo takes the form of warped "views". There are no warped views though - everything continues to look completely normal for anyone who is moving with the clock. A laser sending light at that 30 degree angle is aligned perpendicular to the direction of its (the laser's) travel, and the eye of an observer (co-moving with the laser) receiving that light will perceive it as coming in on the perpendicular too.

Quote
So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length.

So far it has no relevance to the length at all - that only comes in when you deal with light clocks aligned at angles other than perpendicular to their direction of travel.

Quote
Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Correct.

Quote
Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity.

At last!

Quote
We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2.

And that's a longer path for light to travel per tick than on the perpendicular light clock, so the light clocks don't tick at the same rate.

Quote
But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6.

But you need to explain all the stuff you've just done there. What exactly is this 2/3 travel distance; why are you dividing it by 2; why are you subtracting it from the 2 2/3; and why are you dividing 2 1/3 by 2? You already had the answer 2 2/3 for the light path, and the time light takes to cover that distance is the time between clock ticks for that clock.

Quote
We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds

The MMX tests it for 30km/s and shows length contraction. Why should physics make it contract in that way for slower speeds and fail to do so for higher speeds? We have particle accelerators in which particles are sent at speeds close to c, and this impacts on the time it takes for them to decay, lengthening their lifespans many times over, with the statistics on this following the predictions of the model. These particles have a "clock" in the form of a mechanism which runs slow when they move at high speed, but it runs slow in the way predicted by a perpendicular light clock and not an uncontracted light clock aligned with the direction of travel, so do all these particles magically hold their "clock" perpendicular to their direction of travel at all times or do they conform to the rules of the model by length-contracting themselves?

Quote
but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds...

Why do you think light can't completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds? When we use the term "relativistic speed", it's a bit of a woolly one - there's no actual dividing place between relativistic speeds and non-relativistic speeds. The same rule about length-contraction applies to all non-zero speeds, but can usually be ignored when we're doing ordinary stuff like ballistics because the errors are too small to care about. And, if you have a light in the middle of a room in a rocket, there is nothing to stop a light illuminating that wall at any speed, including 0.0000000000001c and 0.999999999999c, and the illumination would appear to be the same in both those cases for anyone inside that room.

Quote
and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

Indeed, but you have to get both your clocks to tick at the same rate to match up with what the null result of MMX shows you, and you can't do that without actual length-contraction.

Quote
You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

There is no "contracted view" of this - it is an invention of your own which doesn't relate to reality. All you've done is deny that actual length-contraction happens on the basis that the experiment has never been done at high speeds where the diagrams show clearly that it's needed, but you've failed to understand that actual length-contraction is still needed at slow speeds at which experiments have been done. Instead of recognising that need, you've come up with a hocus pocus of contracted views that don't explain how you keep your light clocks ticking at the same rate without having light go faster than c on one of them.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/05/2017 23:57:35
Complete garbage , you can mirror the diagram for the other direction if you like but the result is still the same, you quite clearly do not understand anything except what education learned you.

How does reversing the diagram fix it? The train would then be going in the wrong direction. I want you do move the carriage to the right and show the light moving to the right too. Once you've got your head round that really difficult idea, maybe you can start to wonder how long it will take for light to get from the back of the carriage to the front.

Quote
The light does not have to go faster, where on earth did you get that notion from?

How can you have got this far and still not understood where that notion comes from. Do the maths on how long it takes for light to catch the front of the carriage while chasing it from the back of the carriage. Important clue: the front of the carriage is moving away from the light and not towards it. Do the maths on that, then combine it with our maths for light going in the opposite direction from the front of the carriage to the back end (with the back end rushing forwards to meet the light). Add the two lengths of time together, and bingo! You should have a time value for the round trip. That time value will be longer than for a tick of an identical light clock perpendicular to the train (moving along with the train). Why have you still not done this?

Quote
Do you not understand the very simple diagrams of the rear and front of the carriage displacement relative to where and when the light was emitted?

That is your contraction you don't understand.

The problem is entirely with your lack of understanding, as demonstrated by your failure to get the direction of the train right.

Quote
The light takes 2 seconds for the round trip, the carriage does not even need be there because light can pass right through the carriage .

If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 00:02:50
David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction.


Quote
What you mean is, he too misunderstands length-contraction.
That is not what I ''said'', Goc understands but in trying to show you why you are wrong, he is wrongly showing you why you are wrong by using the same 2 dimension thoughts as yourself .

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 00:05:39



Quote
The light takes 2 seconds for the round trip, the carriage does not even need be there because light can pass right through the carriage .

If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.

No, the light takes two seconds, you are really not thinking for yourself about the diagrams. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 00:06:45
Complete garbage , you can mirror the diagram for the other direction if you like but the result is still the same, you quite clearly do not understand anything except what education learned you.

How does reversing the diagram fix it? The train would then be going in the wrong direction. I want you do move the carriage to the right and show the light moving to the right too. Once you've got your head round that really difficult idea, maybe you can start to wonder how long it will take for light to get from the back of the carriage to the front.

Quote
The light does not have to go faster, where on earth did you get that notion from?

How can you have got this far and still not understood where that notion comes from. Do the maths on how long it takes for light to catch the front of the carriage while chasing it from the back of the carriage. Important clue: the front of the carriage is moving away from the light and not towards it. Do the maths on that, then combine it with our maths for light going in the opposite direction from the front of the carriage to the back end (with the back end rushing forwards to meet the light). Add the two lengths of time together, and bingo! You should have a time value for the round trip. That time value will be longer than for a tick of an identical light clock perpendicular to the train (moving along with the train). Why have you still not done this?

Quote
Do you not understand the very simple diagrams of the rear and front of the carriage displacement relative to where and when the light was emitted?

That is your contraction you don't understand.

The problem is entirely with your lack of understanding, as demonstrated by your failure to get the direction of the train right.

Quote
The light takes 2 seconds for the round trip, the carriage does not even need be there because light can pass right through the carriage .

If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.


You are not understanding, I think it may be beyond you, no insult intended.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 00:08:26
Quote
How can you have got this far and still not understood where that notion comes from. Do the maths on how long it takes for light to catch the front of the carriage while chasing it from the back of the carriage. Important clue: the front of the carriage is moving away from the light and not towards it. Do the maths on that, then combine it with our maths for light going in the opposite direction from the front of the carriage to the back end (with the back end rushing forwards to meet the light). Add the two lengths of time together, and bingo! You should have a time value for the round trip. That time value will be longer than for a tick of an identical light clock perpendicular to the train (moving along with the train). Why have you still not done this?
2 seconds round trip, you are doing it wrongly

* signal.jpg (43.78 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4355 times)

The drawing is not your scenario, it is to get you to understand how wrong you are.


Relative correctness( I have drawn you a diagram, study it , understand where you are going wrong.


* dx1.jpg (40.77 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4355 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/05/2017 02:07:54
Here's the root of your misunderstanding. Look at your diagram again - I've replaced parts of it with my own lines and named them A, B and C (in blue text). The length of A added to the length of B comes to twice the length of C. That's your 1.2 + 0.8 = 2.

However, what you've still failed to grasp after all this time is that if the light is taking 1.2 seconds to make the trip from the rear to the front of the carriage, the carriage will move further during that part of the trip for the light than it does on the return journey from the front to the rear where the light makes that trip in only 0.8 seconds, so the carriage moves less far during that part of the trip. You have it moving the same distance for both parts of the light's journey, which means you aren't moving the train at a constant speed. The maths of this is a teeny weeny bit more complicated than you realise.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 12:06:07
Here's the root of your misunderstanding. Look at your diagram again - I've replaced parts of it with my own lines and named them A, B and C (in blue text). The length of A added to the length of B comes to twice the length of C. That's your 1.2 + 0.8 = 2.

However, what you've still failed to grasp after all this time is that if the light is taking 1.2 seconds to make the trip from the rear to the front of the carriage, the carriage will move further during that part of the trip for the light than it does on the return journey from the front to the rear where the light makes that trip in only 0.8 seconds, so the carriage moves less far during that part of the trip. You have it moving the same distance for both parts of the light's journey, which means you aren't moving the train at a constant speed. The maths of this is a teeny weeny bit more complicated than you realise.

Quite clearly you have failed to understand  the diagram which is very correct and did not need no edit from yourself.
let us remove the train carriage so David can understand.

A:_______________________________________________________

B:_______________________________________________________

C:_______________________________________________________

there you go can you understand now?

David ignores that light can pass through things. David ignores that the surface of the train wall does not even reflect light and we would have to add mirrors and a medium.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 12:33:22
I am still waiting for you to explain what suppose to be the problem?  It is relative straight forward.   Light is emitted from one point of the train, (the rear or front).

The train is in motion relative to the lights motion, the light travels less distance and more distance in a round trip because the rear is moving forward contracting the distance the light has to travel, the front recedes away from the light so it has to travel further.

Nothing more to it.

Event 1:light emitted, travelling left to right

Event 2:train moving relative forward

Event 3: spacial distance contracting between the light and train rear

Event 4: reflection and return trip

Event 5: The front of the train recedes away from the chasing light

Event 6: the light eventually catches up with the front

Event 7: -t/dxcdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif+t/dxe0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=t/dx

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/05/2017 18:21:54
Box,

The reason I reworked your diagram a little was to put names on some of the lines to make it easier to refer to them. I've added a new line called D to the latest version of the diagram for the same reason.

You say you have the world's greatest mind, so you really should have got it by now. You have the train moving distance D in 1.2 seconds while light is moving from the rear to the front, and you also have the train moving distance D in 0.8 seconds while light is moving the other way from the front to the rear. That means your train is suddenly going 1.5 times the speed it was for the first leg of the light's journey.

To do things properly, you need to keep the train's speed the same throughout, which means that if it takes 1.2 seconds for light to go from the rear to the front (covering the distance A) while the train moves forwards by the distance D, the train will only move 2/3 D in the 0.8 seconds which you allow for the light to travel backwards (covering the distance B). By the end of that time, the light has not reached the rear as the rear is still 1/3 D further away. You need to let the light and train move a bit further before your clock tick is complete, so it will be longer than 2 seconds.

This is really basic stuff that you've messed up - your foundation is not properly laid and everything else that you've built on top of it will need to be reassessed once you've corrected this fault to make sure that it is sound.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 19:24:38
Box,

The reason I reworked your diagram a little was to put names on some of the lines to make it easier to refer to them. I've added a new line called D to the latest version of the diagram for the same reason.

You say you have the world's greatest mind, so you really should have got it by now. You have the train moving distance D in 1.2 seconds while light is moving from the rear to the front, and you also have the train moving distance D in 0.8 seconds while light is moving the other way from the front to the rear. That means your train is suddenly going 1.5 times the speed it was for the first leg of the light's journey.

To do things properly, you need to keep the train's speed the same throughout, which means that if it takes 1.2 seconds for light to go from the rear to the front (covering the distance A) while the train moves forwards by the distance D, the train will only move 2/3 D in the 0.8 seconds which you allow for the light to travel backwards (covering the distance B). By the end of that time, the light has not reached the rear as the rear is still 1/3 D further away. You need to let the light and train move a bit further before your clock tick is complete, so it will be longer than 2 seconds.

This is really basic stuff that you've messed up - your foundation is not properly laid and everything else that you've built on top of it will need to be reassessed once you've corrected this fault to make sure that it is sound.
#


The times were just an example and not exact, I was trying to show you why and where you are going wrong but obviously it has not sunk in. 
It is sound I assure you, I am not a scientist and do not get paid for my time or even get any sort of respect, so forgive me for not trying too hard with the ''maths''.
I could probably calculate an exact if I wanted to, I already have all of the parameters involved.
The point is the scenario means nothing, it is a poorly thought, thought experiment, no maths really required to observe the result.
I did you the formula , what more do you want?

Event 7:
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 19:34:02
Pfff , 'they'' making me work hard.

Ok the train is travelling at half the speed of light.

The trains length is l=299 792 458 m

In 1 second the rear of the train has travelled 149896229 meters


ok so far?

* t1.jpg (19.71 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4300 times)

* t2.jpg (27.85 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4239 times)

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 19:49:06
Pfff , 'they'' making me work hard.

Ok the train is travelling at half the speed of light.

The trains length is l=299 792 458 m

In 1 second the rear of the train has travelled 149896229 meters


ok so far?

* t1.jpg (19.71 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4300 times)

* t2.jpg (27.85 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4239 times)

* t3.jpg (36.51 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4275 times)

* t4.jpg (37.73 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4267 times)



t(c)cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif/dx1+dx2=1.s
t(c)e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif/dx1+dx2=1.s

My train has glass walls if it helps you understand.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2017 20:13:45
At rest c/dxcdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif=1.s

At rest c/dxe0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=1.s

In motion c/dxcdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif=1.5s

in motion c/dxe0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=0.5s

Reason : distance contraction and distance expansion of points relative to the velocity of light.

ok?

p.s providing the train stops after one positional change, otherwise my times are off slightly if the train is continuous in motion. However positional my times are quite accurate . (I hope lol).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 00:43:13
The times were just an example and not exact, I was trying to show you why and where you are going wrong but obviously it has not sunk in.

How was I wrong for telling you that the time taken is greater than two seconds when you claimed it wasn't? You now appear to have seen the light though, so let's press ahead.

Quote
It is sound I assure you, I am not a scientist and do not get paid for my time or even get any sort of respect, so forgive me for not trying too hard with the ''maths''.

Do you think someone's paying me to run this remedial class? Do you think this maths is hard? This is the easy stuff.

Quote
I could probably calculate an exact if I wanted to, I already have all of the parameters involved.

Why have you never done it? Why wait till now? I've been setting examples in front of you in which the extra distance light has to travel in an uncontracted carriage would lead to a light clock ticking four times less often than a stationary clock due to the light path being four times as long and you've told me that that can't happen. For example,

I said,

Quote
If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.

and you replied,

Quote
No, the light takes two seconds, you are really not thinking for yourself about the diagrams.

Even with the much more modest speeds of travel in other examples, length-contraction has a crucial role in reducing the length of the path light has to follow from rear to front and back again in order to keep the light clock in sync with a perpendicular light clock (which itself runs slower than a stationary clock). This is all necessary to account for the null result of MMX, but you've been writing it all off as nonsense while claiming neither light clock is slowed.

Quote
The point is the scenario means nothing, it is a poorly thought, thought experiment, no maths really required to observe the result.

It's a well thought out experiment which directly illustrates how lengths of light paths are increased by movement of clocks. How the blazes do you imagine it can be explored otherwise?

Quote
I did you the formula , what more do you want?

I don't want anything from you at all. It's entirely up to you how much you want to understand and how much you are happy to go on misunderstanding. I'm simply offering you help with getting your head around it if you're prepared to put in the necessary effort (which isn't greatly taxing at this stage). If you want to understand length contraction, you need to work through the numbers by looking at a light clock aligned with a moving vehicle. If you want to understand the slowing of apparent time, you need to do the same kine of work with a perpendicular light clock to find out how much extra distance light has to travel on that if the vehicle is moving.

Here are my numbers for a vehicle moving at 0.5c:-

Length of vehicle = d

Time for light to travel distance d = t

Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t

Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

Distance light has moved by this point = 2d

Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d

Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d

We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t. The light has moved 2 2/3d through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d, which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.

Do your numbers match mine? If not, why not? Let's see if we can get agreement on this before we go on to look at the perpendicular clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 00:59:19
The times were just an example and not exact, I was trying to show you why and where you are going wrong but obviously it has not sunk in.



How was I wrong for telling you that the time taken is greater than two seconds when you claimed it wasn't? You now appear to have seen the light though, so let's press ahead.

Quote
It is sound I assure you, I am not a scientist and do not get paid for my time or even get any sort of respect, so forgive me for not trying too hard with the ''maths''.

Do you think someone's paying me to run this remedial class? Do you think this maths is hard? This is the easy stuff.

Quote
I could probably calculate an exact if I wanted to, I already have all of the parameters involved.

Why have you never done it? Why wait till now? I've been setting examples in front of you in which the extra distance light has to travel in an uncontracted carriage would lead to a light clock ticking four times less often than a stationary clock due to the light path being four times as long and you've told me that that can't happen. For example,

I said,

Quote
If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.

and you replied,

Quote
No, the light takes two seconds, you are really not thinking for yourself about the diagrams.

Even with the much more modest speeds of travel in other examples, length-contraction has a crucial role in reducing the length of the path light has to follow from rear to front and back again in order to keep the light clock in sync with a perpendicular light clock (which itself runs slower than a stationary clock). This is all necessary to account for the null result of MMX, but you've been writing it all off as nonsense while claiming neither light clock is slowed.

Quote
The point is the scenario means nothing, it is a poorly thought, thought experiment, no maths really required to observe the result.

It's a well thought out experiment which directly illustrates how lengths of light paths are increased by movement of clocks. How the blazes do you imagine it can be explored otherwise?

Quote
I did you the formula , what more do you want?

I don't want anything from you at all. It's entirely up to you how much you want to understand and how much you are happy to go on misunderstanding. I'm simply offering you help with getting your head around it if you're prepared to put in the necessary effort (which isn't greatly taxing at this stage). If you want to understand length contraction, you need to work through the numbers by looking at a light clock aligned with a moving vehicle. If you want to understand the slowing of apparent time, you need to do the same kine of work with a perpendicular light clock to find out how much extra distance light has to travel on that if the vehicle is moving.

Here are my numbers for a vehicle moving at 0.5c:-

Length of vehicle = d

Time for light to travel distance d = t

Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t

Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

Distance light has moved by this point = 2d

Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d

Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d

We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t. The light has moved 2 2/3d through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d, which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.

Do your numbers match mine? If not, why not? Let's see if we can get agreement on this before we go on to look at the perpendicular clock.



You are hard to understand but you mention 1.5c so I guess we do not agree.  I will try to understand what you have put , in the meantime may I suggest you try to understand what I have put.

 Do you agree that a radio signal  is light?
Do you agree the radio signal can pass through the trains walls?
Do you agree that if we used a radio signal instead of ''light'' that there is no scenario to discuss?

The thing is you are still not doing it correctly.

Lets restart this and try to go at a slow pace taking one issue at a time into consideration. You say

''Length of vehicle = d''

Ok, are you happy at defining (d) to be 299 792 458 m in length at relative rest?

Do you agree that a round trip for light travelling  cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif then a return trip e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gifwould take 2 seconds?

* c5.jpg (23.62 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4240 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: timey on 22/05/2017 01:45:27
According to the equivalence principle the laws of physics remain the same in each reference frame.  The reference frame that is travelling at 0.867c has the same laws of physics as the stationary frame.  The stationary frame measures the moving frame as length contracted, but the moving frame measures itself as being the same length as if it were stationary.  What is causing the differing measurements?

The stationary clock is ticking twice as fast as the moving clock.  The stationary frame measures the moving frame as per the tick rate of it's clock, where it concludes that in order to upkeep the constancy of the speed of light the moving frame must be length contracted, and the moving frame measures it's frame as per the tick rate of it's own clock and finds that there is no sign of any length contraction.   As an experiment the people in the moving frame decide to measure their moving frame as per the tick rate of the stationary clock and quickly come to the conclusion that the speed of light in their moving frame is holding itself relative to the tick rate of their moving clock...
They refer back to the equivalence principle to find that the laws of physical process are indeed the same in each reference frame where it would be silly to think that the speed of light in the moving frame would be held relative to a second as per a clock ticking in the stationary frame, when the clock in their own moving frame is ticking at half the rate of the clock in the stationary frame.

Here we are saying that the speed of light is constant in each frame, but that the length of a second that the speed of light is held relative to is different in differing frames resulting in length contraction being a consequence of trying to hold the speed of light as constant held relative to a static length second.

Same mathematical proportions, but laid out from a differing perspective...
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 09:38:00
According to the equivalence principle the laws of physics remain the same in each reference frame.  The reference frame that is travelling at 0.867c has the same laws of physics as the stationary frame.  The stationary frame measures the moving frame as length contracted, but the moving frame measures itself as being the same length as if it were stationary.  What is causing the differing measurements?


poor interpretation is what gives you messed up measures. The light travels less distance or more distance in different times as expected. The speed remains constant, nothing is contracted except the rear distance .
I am working on a diagram, just need to add some values.

* c-graph.jpg (52.24 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 5044 times)



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 22/05/2017 18:12:48
David,

   Sorry I have been very busy. Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light for a clock. Let's make the mirrors in the clock both perpendicular to and with the direction of motion. Obviously the same distance apart. The clock going 0.866025 we use the Gods eye again to start the photons from each mirror. We can divide 1 by 0.133 to get 7.5 of your centimeters for the light to reach the front mirror. We can also do the Pythagoras by squaring 0.866025 for the same distance of 7.5 as the ratio to 1 as the speed of light in the forward direction with vector velocity. The return light rounded off is about 0.57 relative to 1. 8.07 / 2 for the two way measurement of light. 4.035 cycle distance for the photon. Basically a 1/4 ratio 0.25 to 1. If we take the sq. rt. of 0.25 we get 0.5 vs. relative rest. This is what the Lorentz contraction represents.

Now when the forward direction of light hits the forward mirror the perpendicular light has not reached its mirror yet. The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

Explain why we need to contract the object physically? The visual contraction of the hypotenuse angle fits the contracted view. If it were also physically contracted it would not fit what is observed.

It's not that I wasn't taught the same thing you were its just that subjective thinking of physical contraction seems contrived.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 18:37:02


It's not that I wasn't taught the same thing you were its just that subjective thinking of physical contraction seems contrived.


I agree totally Goc, I have looked into this for a few days and can not even find any contraction and have no idea why they say there is a contraction when there is not.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 19:18:43
Do you agree that a radio signal  is light?

We can think of it as being the same thing, but we could leave all the doors open through the train and allow light to make the entire trip through it unhindered, so it's no problem either way.

Quote
Do you agree the radio signal can pass through the trains walls?

No problem.

Quote
Do you agree that if we used a radio signal instead of ''light'' that there is no scenario to discuss?

It's the same scenario.

Quote
The thing is you are still not doing it correctly.

No - if your numbers don't fit with mine, you've made an error somewhere, so let's see if we can find out where.

Quote
Lets restart this and try to go at a slow pace taking one issue at a time into consideration. You say

''Length of vehicle = d''

Ok, are you happy at defining (d) to be 299 792 458 m in length at relative rest?

Absolutely fine. Much easier to work with d though as we can then make it 1 (which means one multiple of 299,792,458 metres).

Quote
Do you agree that a round trip for light travelling  cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif then a return trip e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gifwould take 2 seconds?
[attachment id=0 msg=514855]

If the train's at rest, then yes, but not if it's moving.

So, if you want to tie your numbers into mine, let's take my solution and put yours alongside it within square brackets. I've filled in some of the values for you, so you now need to do the rest by replacing the "..." parts with your own numbers:-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= ...s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


(If you have difficulty understanding step seven, we work out the closing speed by adding the speed of light to the speed of the train because that tells us how long either of them would take to hit the other if the other was stationary. This is a short cut which is useful because it avoids doing multiple additions as we move the light a bit towards the rear of the train and the back of the train half as far towards the train - if you try to work out the answer that way it becomes an ordeal of trial and error as you don't know how far to move either of them to get them to the point where they will collide. Feel free to use trial and error though with multiple moves of light and train until you can see how far they have to go before them meet.)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 20:08:09

(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)


Before I answer your left out results, can you please explain where the hell you are getting 1.5c from?

Not once in the entire scenario does anything travel at 1.5c. Why are you adding the speeds together?  maybe its just me and I need to think about that one.

The light travels cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif, b contracts the distance while c also contracts the distance.

The light hits b after 2/3rds of second because there is less distance travelled by c.

The light then returns e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif while (a) is moving forward at 0.5c expanding the distance.

C then takes more time to catch up. I do not even ''see'' a contraction.   Where is your contraction?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 20:20:19
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light for a clock. Let's make the mirrors in the clock both perpendicular to and with the direction of motion. Obviously the same distance apart. The clock going 0.866025 we use the Gods eye again to start the photons from each mirror. We can divide 1 by 0.133 to get 7.5 of your centimeters for the light to reach the front mirror.

I assume you're still using 10cm as the clock length, so if light moves 10 cm from the rear, the front will move 8.67cm in the same length of time, meaning that it is still 8.67cm ahead of the light. That will happen in an amount of time that we can call "t" (and be aware that this t is not the same size as the t used in my discussions with TheBox - with him the t is a second, but here the t is a third of a nanosecond). Anyway, you will have to repeat this step quite a few times before the light can actually catch up with the front mirror. The closing speed of the light and mirror is 10cm/t minus 8.67cm/t, so that's 1.33cm/t. The gap to be closed is 10cm, so we divide that 10 by the 1.33 and get the time it takes for light to catch the mirror, and that will be 7.4641t. You have mistaken this time as the distance light has to go to get from the back of the carriage to the front, and you should have realised that it can't possibly cross the gap in such a short distance when that distance isn't even as big as the carriage length. To get the actual distance the light has to go before it catches the mirror, you need to multiply the distance that light goes in t (i.e. 10cm) by 7.4641t, so that's going to be a whopping great 74.641cm.

Quote
We can also do the Pythagoras by squaring 0.866025 for the same distance of 7.5 as the ratio to 1 as the speed of light in the forward direction with vector velocity.

The same distance as what? The time that you mistook for distance (and whose value is not quite 7.5)? You've made a massive error which you're now trying to build upon.

Quote
The return light rounded off is about 0.57 relative to 1. 8.07 / 2 for the two way measurement of light. 4.035 cycle distance for the photon. Basically a 1/4 ratio 0.25 to 1. If we take the sq. rt. of 0.25 we get 0.5 vs. relative rest. This is what the Lorentz contraction represents.

For the return trip, the carriage moves 53.5898 and the light moves 4.641cm before they meet. I can't make sense of what you're trying to do there with any of what you've done there.

Quote
Now when the forward direction of light hits the forward mirror the perpendicular light has not reached its mirror yet.

Not possible - light takes 2t for the round trip on both clocks with the carriage at rest. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, it takes 4t on the perpendicular clock, and 2t for each half of that, so it reaches the far perpendicular mirror in 2t and reaches the front mirror of the other clock in 7.4641t.

Quote
The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

It reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.

Quote
Explain why we need to contract the object physically? The visual contraction of the hypotenuse angle fits the contracted view. If it were also physically contracted it would not fit what is observed.

It's not that I wasn't taught the same thing you were its just that subjective thinking of physical contraction seems contrived.

My interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html should already have shown you how the maths relates into reality, so why am I having to point you to them again? Do you not trust your own eyes? The MMX apparatus is like a pair of light clocks perpendicular to each other. The way I've arranged things in those diagrams sends the light from the front mirror to the rear one first, so it's the second part of the light's journey that takes a long time. Study it carefully. How fast is the apparatus moving across the screen and how fast are the red dots moving across the screen? Have I cheated in some way with the diagrams? No - you can see the speeds, lengths, distances and angles by eye and tell that they are correct. On the first interactive diagram you can see what happens without length-contraction. On the second interactive diagram you can see how length-correction produces the null result.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 20:25:18
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light for a clock. Let's make the mirrors in the clock both perpendicular to and with the direction of motion. Obviously the same distance apart. The clock going 0.866025 we use the Gods eye again to start the photons from each mirror. We can divide 1 by 0.133 to get 7.5 of your centimeters for the light to reach the front mirror.

I assume you're still using 10cm as the clock length, so if light moves 10 cm from the rear, the front will move 8.67cm in the same length of time, meaning that it is still 8.67cm ahead of the light. That will happen in an amount of time that we can call "t" (and be aware that this t is not the same size as the t used in my discussions with TheBox - with him the t is a second, but here the t is a third of a nanosecond). Anyway, you will have to repeat this step quite a few times before the light can actually catch up with the front mirror. The closing speed of the light and mirror is 10cm/t minus 8.67cm/t, so that's 1.33cm/t. The gap to be closed is 10cm, so we divide that 10 by the 1.33 and get the time it takes for light to catch the mirror, and that will be 7.4641t. You have mistaken this time as the distance light has to go to get from the back of the carriage to the front, and you should have realised that it can't possibly cross the gap in such a short distance when that distance isn't even as big as the carriage length. To get the actual distance the light has to go before it catches the mirror, you need to multiply the distance that light goes in t (i.e. 10cm) by 7.4641t, so that's going to be a whopping great 74.641cm.

Quote
We can also do the Pythagoras by squaring 0.866025 for the same distance of 7.5 as the ratio to 1 as the speed of light in the forward direction with vector velocity.

The same distance as what? The time that you mistook for distance (and whose value is not quite 7.5)? You've made a massive error which you're now trying to build upon.

Quote
The return light rounded off is about 0.57 relative to 1. 8.07 / 2 for the two way measurement of light. 4.035 cycle distance for the photon. Basically a 1/4 ratio 0.25 to 1. If we take the sq. rt. of 0.25 we get 0.5 vs. relative rest. This is what the Lorentz contraction represents.

For the return trip, the carriage moves 53.5898 and the light moves 4.641cm before they meet. I can't make sense of what you're trying to do there with any of what you've done there.

Quote
Now when the forward direction of light hits the forward mirror the perpendicular light has not reached its mirror yet.

Not possible - light takes 2t for the round trip on both clocks with the carriage at rest. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, it takes 4t on the perpendicular clock, and 2t for each half of that, so it reaches the far perpendicular mirror in 2t and reaches the front mirror of the other clock in 7.4641t.

Quote
The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

It reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.

Quote
Explain why we need to contract the object physically? The visual contraction of the hypotenuse angle fits the contracted view. If it were also physically contracted it would not fit what is observed.

It's not that I wasn't taught the same thing you were its just that subjective thinking of physical contraction seems contrived.

My interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html should already have shown you how the maths relates into reality, so why am I having to point you to them again? Do you not trust your own eyes? The MMX apparatus is like a pair of light clocks perpendicular to each other. The way I've arranged things in those diagrams sends the light from the front mirror to the rear one first, so it's the second part of the light's journey that takes a long time. Study it carefully. How fast is the apparatus moving across the screen and how fast are the red dots moving across the screen? Have I cheated in some way with the diagrams? No - you can see the speeds, lengths, distances and angles by eye and tell that they are correct. On the first interactive diagram you can see what happens without length-contraction. On the second interactive diagram you can see how length-correction produces the null result.

event 1:The first distance contracts(rear), relative to light at 449688702m/s?

0.5c+c


event 2: rear to front return, the distance contracts at 149896229m/s?

added : much easier using cars
* cars.jpg (55.67 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 5049 times)

P.s : All you have explained thus far just explains that light takes more time to travel a further distance which I think we all know. I still await where you observe this physical contraction?

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 20:51:32
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

Before I answer your left out results, can you please explain where the hell you are getting 1.5c from?

Not once in the entire scenario does anything travel at 1.5c. Why are you adding the speeds together?  maybe its just me and I need to think about that one.

It's a mathematical method which I explained that in the final paragraph, so I'll repeat it here:-

"If you have difficulty understanding step seven, we work out the closing speed by adding the speed of light to the speed of the train because that tells us how long either of them would take to hit the other if the other was stationary. This is a short cut which is useful because it avoids doing multiple additions as we move the light a bit towards the rear of the train and the back of the train half as far towards the train - if you try to work out the answer that way it becomes an ordeal of trial and error as you don't know how far to move either of them to get them to the point where they will collide. Feel free to use trial and error though with multiple moves of light and train until you can see how far they have to go before them meet."

I invited you to check the validity of the mathematical method if you wish to by using trial and error instead - that may involve doing the calculation through many steps with guessed distances until you happen upon the right numbers for the light to hit the rear of the train.

Quote
The light travels cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif, b contracts the distance while c also contracts the distance.

The light hits b after 2/3rds of second because there is less distance travelled by c.

What do you mean by "b contracts the distance" and "c contracts the distance"? When light is moving from a to b, b is moving away from it while the light chases it down. It takes 2 seconds for the light to catch b, as described in step (4). The separation distance is closed over time by the relative movement of the light and the front end of the train, but it's not a good idea to use the word "contracted" in this context.

Quote
The light then returns e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif while (a) is moving forward at 0.5c expanding the distance.

It's also not a good idea to use the word "expanding" there. This time we have a separation distance being closed over time by the relative movement of the light and rear of the train, and it takes 2/3 of a second for them to meet.

Quote
C then takes more time to catch up. I do not even ''see'' a contraction.   Where is your contraction?

There is no contraction involved yet. We only apply length-contraction later on when we try to make this light clock tick at the same rate as a perpendicular light clock which will tick faster than the uncontracted lengthways light clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 21:00:03
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

Before I answer your left out results, can you please explain where the hell you are getting 1.5c from?

Not once in the entire scenario does anything travel at 1.5c. Why are you adding the speeds together?  maybe its just me and I need to think about that one.

It's a mathematical method which I explained that in the final paragraph, so I'll repeat it here:-

"If you have difficulty understanding step seven, we work out the closing speed by adding the speed of light to the speed of the train because that tells us how long either of them would take to hit the other if the other was stationary. This is a short cut which is useful because it avoids doing multiple additions as we move the light a bit towards the rear of the train and the back of the train half as far towards the train - if you try to work out the answer that way it becomes an ordeal of trial and error as you don't know how far to move either of them to get them to the point where they will collide. Feel free to use trial and error though with multiple moves of light and train until you can see how far they have to go before them meet."

I invited you to check the validity of the mathematical method if you wish to by using trial and error instead - that may involve doing the calculation through many steps with guessed distances until you happen upon the right numbers for the light to hit the rear of the train.

Quote
The light travels cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif, b contracts the distance while c also contracts the distance.

The light hits b after 2/3rds of second because there is less distance travelled by c.

What do you mean by "b contracts the distance" and "c contracts the distance"? When light is moving from a to b, b is moving away from it while the light chases it down. It takes 2 seconds for the light to catch b, as described in step (4). The separation distance is closed over time by the relative movement of the light and the front end of the train, but it's not a good idea to use the word "contracted" in this context.

Quote
The light then returns e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif while (a) is moving forward at 0.5c expanding the distance.

It's also not a good idea to use the word "expanding" there. This time we have a separation distance being closed over time by the relative movement of the light and rear of the train, and it takes 2/3 of a second for them to meet.

Quote
C then takes more time to catch up. I do not even ''see'' a contraction.   Where is your contraction?

There is no contraction involved yet. We only apply length-contraction later on when we try to make this light clock tick at the same rate as a perpendicular light clock which will tick faster than the uncontracted lengthways light clock.

Ok I do 'see'' your contraction now you mention the light clock, however you are ''playing'' with a ''parlour trick illusion'', twice the distance is twice the time, the clock is not broken in your scenario.
If you were to define geometrical points of position and took your measure from that, it removes all your error in the scenario. Changing origin points will change the length of the light second obviously because you are increasing or decreasing the distance the light has to travel. You are removing the constant time length by variance in the origin points creating this ''parlour trick''.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 21:03:20

event 1:The first distance contracts(rear), relative to light at 449688702m/s?

0.5c+c


event 2: rear to front return, the distance contracts at 149896229m/s?

added : much easier using cars
* cars.jpg (55.67 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 5049 times)

I have no idea what your diagram's meant to be showing or how it is relevant to anything here. It appears to display contractions perpendicular to the direction of travel and has more to do with perspective and art.

Quote
P.s : All you have explained thus far just explains that light takes more time to travel a further distance which I think we all know. I still await where you observe this physical contraction?

You didn't appear to understand before that a light clock ticks slower if it's moving along because of the extra distance light has to travel through space for each tick. If you have now got your head around that, you should be able to produce numbers for this that fit with mine, and then we can move on to looking at the perpendicular light clock to see how much its ticking rate is slowed. After that, we can compare the two clocks to see whether they tick at the same rate as each other, and we'll find that they don't - the perpendicular light clock ticks more often than the light clock aligned lengthways along the train. The MMX shows us though that in the real universe the two clocks do tick at the same rate as each other, and that's why we conclude that there must be length-contraction in the real universe. At the moment though, you're a long way from being able to understand that, and it's not certain that your mind is capable of getting on top of it, even if it is the best mind on the planet.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 21:06:18

event 1:The first distance contracts(rear), relative to light at 449688702m/s?

0.5c+c


event 2: rear to front return, the distance contracts at 149896229m/s?

added : much easier using cars
* cars.jpg (55.67 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 5049 times)

I have no idea what your diagram's meant to be showing or how it is relevant to anything here. It appears to display contractions perpendicular to the direction of travel and has more to do with perspective and art.

Quote
P.s : All you have explained thus far just explains that light takes more time to travel a further distance which I think we all know. I still await where you observe this physical contraction?

You didn't appear to understand before that a light clock ticks slower if it's moving along because of the extra distance light has to travel through space for each tick. If you have now got your head around that, you should be able to produce numbers for this that fit with mine, and then we can move on to looking at the perpendicular light clock to see how much its ticking rate is slowed. After that, we can compare the two clocks to see whether they tick at the same rate as each other, and we'll find that they don't - the perpendicular light clock ticks more often than the light clock aligned lengthways along the train. The MMX shows us though that in the real universe the two clocks do tick at the same rate as each other, and that's why we conclude that there must be length-contraction in the real universe. At the moment though, you're a long way from being able to understand that, and it's not certain that your mind is capable of getting on top of it, even if it is the best mind on the planet.

If the diagram is easier to understand for you this way, consider the 0.5c ''block'' is the front of the train and the c ''block'' is the chasing light.

The lines are the road lol.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 21:27:45
Ok I do 'see'' your contraction now you mention the light clock, however you are ''playing'' with a ''parlour trick illusion'', twice the distance is twice the time, the clock is not broken in your scenario.

There's no issue of a clock being broken. The longer the light takes to complete the round trip, the slower that clock will tick. A moving clock will tick less frequently than a stationary clock. A moving clock that's aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel will tick more frequently though than an uncontracted clock that's aligned lengthways with its direction of travel, and again there's no parlour trick involved in that - the light has further to go on the latter clock to complete a round trip. The parlour trick is performed by the universe by contracting things in their direction of travel and thereby producing a null result with the MMX.

Quote
If you were to define geometrical points of position and took your measure from that, it removes all your error in the scenario. Changing origin points will change the length of the light second obviously because you are increasing or decreasing the distance the light has to travel. You are removing the constant time length by variance in the origin points creating this ''parlour trick''.

Look at my interactive MMX diagrams. The screen is the fabric of space and the geometrical points of position don't change at all. The apparatus and light move across the screen, and it's where the mirrors are when the light hits them that determines how far the light has to travel to complete a round trip. I do not vary the origin position at any time.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 21:46:09
If the diagram is easier to understand for you this way, consider the 0.5c ''block'' is the front of the train and the c ''block'' is the chasing light.

The wording was odd and the diagram unnecessary. What you appear to be saying is that the closing speed for the front-to-rear part of the light's trip is 449688702m/s (which is the second part of the trip) and that the closing speed for the rear-to-front part of the light's trip is c minus the speed of the train, so that's 149896229, and both those numbers are correct. They equate to 1.5c and 0.5c. We use the 0.5c to work out that light takes 2 seconds for the first part of its trip, and the 1.5c to work out that it takes 2/3 seconds for the second part of its trip. If you agree with that, then you should be happy with the value I've put in square brackets in paragraph (7) below.

So, we now have this:-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


If you agree with the values in square brackets so far, we can continue filling the rest in from paragraph (8 ) onwards.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 23:45:34
There's no issue of a clock being broken. The longer the light takes to complete the round trip, the slower that clock will tick.

Which I have been trying to tell you , means absolutely nothing.  The clock is not ticking slower at all, the distance is being increased the light has to travel, you interpreting this as being a tick of a clock is totally unnecessarily.  The subjective interpretation you are using is the parlour trick and you do not even realise why.  It means nothing, it is babble that shows nothing except light has to travel less or more distance relative to the motion of the carriage.
So why are you  making it to be more than it actually is?  I don't understand because it is simple laws of physics that needs no more interpretation than what I mentioned.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2017 23:56:21

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)


Is your starting point from the rear travelling to the front e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif  or from the front travelling to the rear cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif?

I am starting from the front of the train, as the train moves the light is released in the rear direction. I have the shortest time firstly then the longer time secondly. 

From the front to the rear whilst the rear is moving towards the light and vice versus, I  have t=0.72s approx.

Then from the rear to the front t=1.5s approx



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 00:29:47
There's no issue of a clock being broken. The longer the light takes to complete the round trip, the slower that clock will tick.

Which I have been trying to tell you , means absolutely nothing.  The clock is not ticking slower at all, the distance is being increased the light has to travel, you interpreting this as being a tick of a clock is totally unnecessarily.  The subjective interpretation you are using is the parlour trick and you do not even realise why.  It means nothing, it is babble that shows nothing except light has to travel less or more distance relative to the motion of the carriage.
So why are you  making it to be more than it actually is?  I don't understand because it is simple laws of physics that needs no more interpretation than what I mentioned.

If this is all a wind up, it's an extraordinary performance and you are indeed a comedy genius. However, I have to consider the possibility that you aren't that brilliant, in which case you really do think what you just said.

A light clock (as used in thought experiments rather than the real world) works by sending out a pulse of light which travels along to a mirror and bounces back to a detector where the light was originally sent out from, at which point another pulse of light is sent out. A tick of this kind of clock is completed when the light pulse returns and a new one is sent out. If the light has to travel further through space due to the movement of the light clock, the light clock ticks less often. The light is a key part of the clock's mechanism and the time it takes to complete the round trip dictates the tick rate. [I don't know how else you imagine a light clock could be made to tick though - there's no possible way for it to measure how far the light's actually travelled and to tick once it's gone a set distance.]

The whole point of using light clocks in thought experiments is that their mechanism is out in the open and we can see how the clock is slowed by its movement, but all clocks are slowed in the same way by their movement through space no matter how they're designed - they all have components which move in some way or other with delays introduced by increases in force communication distances caused by movement of the clock, and length-contraction also has a role in affecting their tick rate.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 00:33:05

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)


Is your starting point from the rear travelling to the front e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif  or from the front travelling to the rear cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif?

I am starting from the front of the train, as the train moves the light is released in the rear direction. I have the shortest time firstly then the longer time secondly.

Throughout this thread I've worked with the rear-to-front direction first, so if you've switched it round to do the other direction first, it's a simple matter of swapping the numbers over.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 00:57:54
There's no issue of a clock being broken. The longer the light takes to complete the round trip, the slower that clock will tick.

Which I have been trying to tell you , means absolutely nothing.  The clock is not ticking slower at all, the distance is being increased the light has to travel, you interpreting this as being a tick of a clock is totally unnecessarily.  The subjective interpretation you are using is the parlour trick and you do not even realise why.  It means nothing, it is babble that shows nothing except light has to travel less or more distance relative to the motion of the carriage.
So why are you  making it to be more than it actually is?  I don't understand because it is simple laws of physics that needs no more interpretation than what I mentioned.

If this is all a wind up, it's an extraordinary performance and you are indeed a comedy genius. However, I have to consider the possibility that you aren't that brilliant, in which case you really do think what you just said.

A light clock (as used in thought experiments rather than the real world) works by sending out a pulse of light which travels along to a mirror and bounces back to a detector where the light was originally sent out from, at which point another pulse of light is sent out. A tick of this kind of clock is completed when the light pulse returns and a new one is sent out. If the light has to travel further through space due to the movement of the light clock, the light clock ticks less often. The light is a key part of the clock's mechanism and the time it takes to complete the round trip dictates the tick rate. [I don't know how else you imagine a light clock could be made to tick though - there's no possible way for it to measure how far the light's actually travelled and to tick once it's gone a set distance.]

The whole point of using light clocks in thought experiments is that their mechanism is out in the open and we can see how the clock is slowed by its movement, but all clocks are slowed in the same way by their movement through space no matter how they're designed - they all have components which move in some way or other with delays introduced by increases in force communication distances caused by movement of the clock, and length-contraction also has a role in affecting their tick rate.

Quite clearly you think a clock is more than it is.   I know what a light clock is but quite clearly you ignore the observer affect by adding mirrors and such, setting the parameters to fit the ''story'' without considering the what at best you have in terms of objective reality.  The clock does not tick slower to begin with, we can work out the extra distance the light needs to travel and adjust accordingly to maintain the same rate of tick. i.e 1 second would not be equal to 1 second unless we calculated the difference to synchronise the difference.
I.e one clock would be measuring 1 second while 1 clock was measuring 1.2 seconds. The duration and length of a second then remaining the same with no contraction needed .
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 01:00:06

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)


Is your starting point from the rear travelling to the front e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif  or from the front travelling to the rear cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif?

I am starting from the front of the train, as the train moves the light is released in the rear direction. I have the shortest time firstly then the longer time secondly.

Throughout this thread I've worked with the rear-to-front direction first, so if you've switched it round to do the other direction first, it's a simple matter of swapping the numbers over.
Ok, well i get about 1.5s and about 0.72s  approx

p.s i did it this way but could be more precise if needed.

* newc.jpg (31.52 kB . 801x476 - viewed 4888 times)




Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 23/05/2017 02:46:20
I assume you're still using 10cm as the clock length, so if light moves 10 cm from the rear, the front will move 8.67cm in the same length of time, meaning that it is still 8.67cm ahead of the light. That will happen in an amount of time that we can call "t" (and be aware that this t is not the same size as the t used in my discussions with TheBox - with him the t is a second, but here the t is a third of a nanosecond). Anyway, you will have to repeat this step quite a few times before the light can actually catch up with the front mirror. The closing speed of the light and mirror is 10cm/t minus 8.67cm/t, so that's 1.33cm/t. The gap to be closed is 10cm, so we divide that 10 by the 1.33 and get the time it takes for light to catch the mirror, and that will be 7.4641t. You have mistaken this time as the distance light has to go to get from the back of the carriage to the front, and you should have realised that it can't possibly cross the gap in such a short distance when that distance isn't even as big as the carriage length. To get the actual distance the light has to go before it catches the mirror, you need to multiply the distance that light goes in t (i.e. 10cm) by 7.4641t, so that's going to be a whopping great 74.641cm.

You tell me 0.867 rounded off 0.866025. So rather than 1.33 that you gave me you used the correct 1.33975 for 7.461. We are just using ratio's for distance light travels. How we measure time will fall out of our measurements as ratios. The end result at this speed will be half the tick rate. You are not following the postulates of relativity in your understanding for distance. Your using a fudge factor and confusing yourself with your current understanding of time.

Quote
The same distance as what? The time that you mistook for distance (and whose value is not quite 7.5)? You've made a massive error which you're now trying to build upon.
Rounding off is a massive error? I see you rounded up to 0.867 when .866 was more accurate

Quote
For the return trip, the carriage moves 53.5898 and the light moves 4.641cm before they meet. I can't make sense of what you're trying to do there with any of what you've done there.


Of course you cannot make sense of what I am saying. You do not understand the ratio for closing distances. You are probably subtracting your physical contraction but here is the real closing distances. Follow my logic: if one side is light speed and the other side is light speed they would meet in the middle 50% or .50 / .50 for distance covered. Now if the mirror on the physical object is moving at 0.866025c and closing on c, c wins. The physical object moves 0.866025 for every 1.0 for light. So the closing speed of light has to be over 50% of the closing distance. I just estimated 57% which was 0.57 of one length as a ratio. Light always wins in closing ratios. Now light goes forward 7.46 and returns 1 for light and 0.866 for the object (clock) we have 0.133 difference divide that by 2 for a quick estimate gives about 0.066 which I rounded up to 0.57 and added it to my rounded off 7.5 cars for light to catch the front mirror for light to travel 7.46 + 0.57 = 8.03 for its length. Now we divide it by 2 for 4.015 cars divide into one car and we get 0.25 the ratio. The square rt. of 0.25 is 0.5 tick rate. If you are unhappy with Lorentz I am unhappy with physical contraction. You do not fudge objects to fit math when you do not understand what time represents

Quote
Not possible - light takes 2t for the round trip on both clocks with the carriage at rest. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, it takes 4t on the perpendicular clock, and 2t for each half of that, so it reaches the far perpendicular mirror in 2t and reaches the front mirror of the other clock in 7.4641t.
Just like you missed the closing speeds your missing the position of the perpendicular mirror in the clock at 0.866025c when the light reaches the mirror. The perpendicular mirror reaches the position of 7.46 cars the light still has not reached the perpendicular mirror. The perpendicular light only found space and not the mirror when light reached the mirrors position from the past. The angle of light is still traveling to hit the angled closing position in space.
The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

[/quote]
It reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.[/quote]
Your logic is missing the mark.

My interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html should already have shown you how the maths relates into reality, so why am I having to point you to them again? Do you not trust your own eyes? The MMX apparatus is like a pair of light clocks perpendicular to each other. The way I've arranged things in those diagrams sends the light from the front mirror to the rear one first, so it's the second part of the light's journey that takes a long time. Study it carefully. How fast is the apparatus moving across the screen and how fast are the red dots moving across the screen? Have I cheated in some way with the diagrams? No - you can see the speeds, lengths, distances and angles by eye and tell that they are correct. On the first interactive diagram you can see what happens without length-contraction. On the second interactive diagram you can see how length-correction produces the null result.
[/quote]
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 12:53:31
@David

Why do we need any maths when we can have a scale system?  2:1 ratio

* c-graph.jpg (78.8 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 4672 times)

Does your maths agree with my diagram? for the first part cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif which is front to rear.

Your first answer must be around the 1.7s mark. If not you got it wrong somewhere.

added- huh, somethings not right, how can they meet in 1.7s when the light has travelled for more than that , scratches head and rethinks diagram.

I might have to agree time slows down .

Correction , the first contact point should be on the 2 second mark.

p.s damn, i messed it up lol, i will do it again later,
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 23/05/2017 14:52:59
Hi guys, hi David, 

I'm Raymond, the guy on Facebook. :0) Your nice simulation on Magic Schoolbook shows very clearly how and why length contraction should occur, so I take it as a possibility, but you also agree with relativists that a light clock should slow down when it moves since light takes more time between the mirrors this way, and I can't see how it should since there would be no doppler effect to measure whatever the speed, thus no variation in the elapsed time between the light pulses. You say «The simplest kind of clock is the light clock: this is a device which sends a pulse of light out to a mirror which then reflects it straight back again to a sensor from where the light was originally emitted, and the round trip of the light pulse counts as a tick. ». But it seems to me that, without doppler effect, even if light would take more time between the mirrors, the distance between the tics would always be measured the same whatever the speed, which means that a clock that has traveled during a certain time would show exactly the same elapsed time than one at rest.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 15:58:20

* ruler.jpg (96.98 kB . 1765x505 - viewed 4691 times)

added- still not quite right.

tA=0.75s

tB=1.5s

thinks that's correct now?

Anyway David, what i have been trying to explain to you is that it means nothing.  There is no contraction of space or the carriage. There is only objectively  a variance in distance that gives you a variance in tick rate.






Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 17:46:22
Quite clearly you think a clock is more than it is.   I know what a light clock is but quite clearly you ignore the observer affect by adding mirrors and such, setting the parameters to fit the ''story'' without considering the what at best you have in terms of objective reality.  The clock does not tick slower to begin with, we can work out the extra distance the light needs to travel and adjust accordingly to maintain the same rate of tick. i.e 1 second would not be equal to 1 second unless we calculated the difference to synchronise the difference.
I.e one clock would be measuring 1 second while 1 clock was measuring 1.2 seconds. The duration and length of a second then remaining the same with no contraction needed .

Picture this. We have two light clocks sitting next to each other, and let's align them the same way as each other. We move one of the light clocks away from the other and it ticks less often than the stationary one because of the increased distance light has to travel in the moving clock to complete each tick. We stop moving that clock and see it return to ticking at the same rate as the clock that never moved. Next, we move it back again to reunite it with the stationary clock, and while it's moving back it ticks more slowly again. Once we have brought it to a halt next to the clock that never moved, the two clocks tick in sync with each other again. If each clock has a counter, as clocks usually do, they might both have been set to zero at the start of the experiment. Now one of the clocks has a higher reading on it than the other because it has recorded more ticks. The clock that did all the moving has registered fewer ticks. The light in both clocks travelled exactly the same distance through space during the experiment, but it had to go further in the moving clock for many of the ticks and therefore couldn't complete as many ticks for its clock as the light in the stationary clock.

To claim that the clock that moved didn't tick more slowly than the one that stayed still the whole time is a nonsense - the different counts that they've racked up prove it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 18:50:08
You tell me 0.867 rounded off 0.866025. So rather than 1.33 that you gave me you used the correct 1.33975 for 7.461. We are just using ratio's for distance light travels. How we measure time will fall out of our measurements as ratios. The end result at this speed will be half the tick rate. You are not following the postulates of relativity in your understanding for distance. Your using a fudge factor and confusing yourself with your current understanding of time.

Quote
The same distance as what? The time that you mistook for distance (and whose value is not quite 7.5)? You've made a massive error which you're now trying to build upon.
Rounding off is a massive error? I see you rounded up to 0.867 when .866 was more accurate

You're right about my 0.867 being wrong - I've accidentally got into the habit of using the 7 from the 0.87 version. Every time I use the number in a calculator though, I use sin(60) and never type in a rounded off version of it, and I'd expect you to do the same. The important point here though is that the 7.461 figure is not 7.5, but you appeared to be mistaking your rounded up 7.5 for sin(60)^2. I was drawing attention to the difference in order to help you see that it is not what you thought it was, the 7.461 actually being the time of the forward trip of the light. I have used no fudge factor in my calculations and am not confused in the least - you imagine that the massive error I referred to is the rounding error, but that was just a small detail. The massive error was you taking 7.5 (or the correct value of 7.461) as the distance the light has to travel from the rear mirror to the front one - the distance it actually has to travel is TEN TIMES as great: 74.61cm. Look at the first of my interactive diagrams and watch how long it takes for the red pulse of light to travel from the rear mirror to the front one and see how far across the screen it has to travel during that time.

Quote
For the return trip, the carriage moves 53.5898 and the light moves 4.641cm before they meet. I can't make sense of what you're trying to do there with any of what you've done there.

I don't know how, but I made two mistakes in that bit. If you knew the right numbers though, you should have been able to work that out yourself: the decimal point is in the wrong place for the first number, and the two numbers need to be switched over. The carriage moves 4.641cm and the light moves 5.35898. And before you try to capitalise on that and say it's as bad as your error, it isn't - I didn't build anything upon these errors and it's only the corrected versions that fit with what I've been saying, but you built a lot on top of yours and correcting them will force you to throw out your argument.

Quote
Of course you cannot make sense of what I am saying. You do not understand the ratio for closing distances. You are probably subtracting your physical contraction but here is the real closing distances.

There is no physical contraction involved in these calculations - we haven't got that far yet. These calculations are all about an uncontracted train.

Quote
Follow my logic: if one side is light speed and the other side is light speed they would meet in the middle 50% or .50 / .50 for distance covered.

You've got that bit right.

Quote
Now if the mirror on the physical object is moving at 0.866025c and closing on c, c wins. The physical object moves 0.866025 for every 1.0 for light. So the closing speed of light has to be over 50% of the closing distance. I just estimated 57% which was 0.57 of one length as a ratio. Light always wins in closing ratios.

I had assumed you had calculated your 57% figure rather than just guessing, and that's why I thought you had applied an incorrect method. I gave you my numbers (one incorrect, and both incorrectly labelled) in order to give you something to aim for in your calculations, and if you'd done the maths properly you would have understood where my numbers come from despite the errors, and you would have known that we had both applied a valid method.

Quote
Now light goes forward 7.46 and returns 1 for light and 0.866 for the object (clock) we have 0.133 difference divide that by 2 for a quick estimate gives about 0.066 which I rounded up to 0.57 and added it to my rounded off 7.5 cars for light to catch the front mirror for light to travel 7.46 + 0.57 = 8.03 for its length. Now we divide it by 2 for 4.015 cars divide into one car and we get 0.25 the ratio. The square rt. of 0.25 is 0.5 tick rate.

That is a hopeless mess of misapplied maths! The correct method is to add the speeds of the train and the light [or subtract one from the other if you're taking one of them to be negative] which gives you a closing speed of 1.866c. You then divide the separation distance (10cm) by that speed to get the time taken for the rear of the carriage and the light to meet up. You then take that result and multiply it by c (=1) to get the distance travelled by the light in that time. To get the distance travelled by the carriage in that time, you can either multiply the same result by 0.866 or you can take away the distance travelled by the light in that time from the 10cm initial separation figure - both methods produce the same value.

Quote
If you are unhappy with Lorentz I am unhappy with physical contraction. You do not fudge objects to fit math when you do not understand what time represents

I am very happy with Lorentz, and we haven't done any physical contraction here yet. You are the one doing the fudging with your crazy misapplication of maths where you've defecated a whole lot of numbers into a pot and stirred them together with a determination to make them conform to the right amount of time dilation for a perpendicular clock which is the wrong answer for this uncontracted clock aligned lengthways with the train's direction of travel. I've rarely seen maths being so misused outside of politics. It's shocking, and it will do your reputation here no good at all if you fail to correct it in a hurry. Do the job properly!

Quote
Quote
Not possible - light takes 2t for the round trip on both clocks with the carriage at rest. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, it takes 4t on the perpendicular clock, and 2t for each half of that, so it reaches the far perpendicular mirror in 2t and reaches the front mirror of the other clock in 7.4641t.
Just like you missed the closing speeds your missing the position of the perpendicular mirror in the clock at 0.866025c when the light reaches the mirror. The perpendicular mirror reaches the position of 7.46 cars the light still has not reached the perpendicular mirror. The perpendicular light only found space and not the mirror when light reached the mirrors position from the past. The angle of light is still traveling to hit the angled closing position in space.
The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

You still haven't taken in the scale of your monumental error! The 7.4641t is a time and not a distance. The distance is that time multiplied by 10 (which comes from the 10cm distance). The train moves over seventy four cm before the light reaches the front mirror.

Quote
Quote
It reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.
Your logic is missing the mark.

Your maths is woeful, and your eyesight may be just as bad. Look at my interactive diagrams properly and measure the distance the red dot moves across the screen from the point where it leaves the rear mirror to the point where it catches the front mirror. Then compare that with the distance the apparatus moves between the other red dot leaving the bottom mirror and arriving at the top one. Maybe your screen isn't wide enough to do the first measurement? It that's the problem, just use the lower interactive diagram that shows the length contraction applied to the MMX, then double the distance that you measure there (but don't double the other distance).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 19:16:22
Hi Raymond,

...but you also agree with relativists that a light clock should slow down when it moves since light takes more time between the mirrors this way, and I can't see how it should since there would be no doppler effect to measure whatever the speed, thus no variation in the elapsed time between the light pulses.

I've answered part of that in post #123 (a short time ago today). On the issue of the Doppler effect, there would be no change at all in frequency of the light for anyone co-moving with the clock, so it's only a stationary observer that would see the colour of the light change. The light in the moving clock would be produced at a lower frequency as the mechanism producing it would be slowed by movement through space, but it would also vary, becoming more blue when the light pulse is on the longer forward paths through its clock and more red when moving rearward on the short paths. The speed of the light through space would always be c though - the frequency changes cannot affect that.

Quote
...But it seems to me that, without doppler effect, even if light would take more time between the mirrors, the distance between the tics would always be measured the same whatever the speed, which means that a clock that has traveled during a certain time would show exactly the same elapsed time than one at rest.

If you look at my interactive MMX diagrams, you can see the stationary apparatus on the left with red dots representing light pulses moving through it, and you can see that the ticks are faster on it that they are on the moving version of the apparatus shown to the right of it. The MMX is directly equivalent to a pair of light clocks set perpendicular to each other, so the time taken for the light to leave the semi-silvered mirror and to return to it from one of the mirrors at the ends of the arms can be taken as a clock tick. The same slowing of ticks would occur for moving the apparatus in the opposite direction, so if you were to imagine it stationary next to the one on the left that's already shown as being stationary, and then move it to the right for a while, then stop it, then move it back to where it started, and then stop it there, you would be able to count the ticks for the stationary one and for the one that moves, and you'd then see that the one that moves counts up fewer ticks than the stationary one as a result of its movement. You should also be able to see that the light never runs slow in either clock, so there is no slowing of any real time - there is only a slowing of clocks due to the greater distances that light has to travel on a moving clock per tick. All functionality of moving things is slowed for the same reason.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 19:26:18
tA=0.75s

tB=1.5s

thinks that's correct now?

What are those numbers supposed to represent?

Quote
Anyway David, what i have been trying to explain to you is that it means nothing.  There is no contraction of space or the carriage. There is only objectively  a variance in distance that gives you a variance in tick rate.

There is a reduction of ticks for moving clocks compared to stationary clocks, and the slowing of clocks in the real universe matches up with the increased distances that light travels on light clocks set perpendicular to their direction of travel and with length-contracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel, but until you can produce the right numbers or read what's happening on interactive diagrams correctly, you'll continue to misunderstand all of this and I don't have the time to drag you kicking and screaming through the rest of it if your learning speed is going to stay so low. You need help from AGI and I'd rather put the time into building that AGI.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 19:29:01
Quite clearly you think a clock is more than it is.   I know what a light clock is but quite clearly you ignore the observer affect by adding mirrors and such, setting the parameters to fit the ''story'' without considering the what at best you have in terms of objective reality.  The clock does not tick slower to begin with, we can work out the extra distance the light needs to travel and adjust accordingly to maintain the same rate of tick. i.e 1 second would not be equal to 1 second unless we calculated the difference to synchronise the difference.
I.e one clock would be measuring 1 second while 1 clock was measuring 1.2 seconds. The duration and length of a second then remaining the same with no contraction needed .

Picture this. We have two light clocks sitting next to each other, and let's align them the same way as each other. We move one of the light clocks away from the other and it ticks less often than the stationary one because of the increased distance light has to travel in the moving clock to complete each tick. We stop moving that clock and see it return to ticking at the same rate as the clock that never moved. Next, we move it back again to reunite it with the stationary clock, and while it's moving back it ticks more slowly again. Once we have brought it to a halt next to the clock that never moved, the two clocks tick in sync with each other again. If each clock has a counter, as clocks usually do, they might both have been set to zero at the start of the experiment. Now one of the clocks has a higher reading on it than the other because it has recorded more ticks. The clock that did all the moving has registered fewer ticks. The light in both clocks travelled exactly the same distance through space during the experiment, but it had to go further in the moving clock for many of the ticks and therefore couldn't complete as many ticks for its clock as the light in the stationary clock.

To claim that the clock that moved didn't tick more slowly than the one that stayed still the whole time is a nonsense - the different counts that they've racked up prove it.

The clocks do measure a different amount of ticks for the obviousness that you are changing  the distance.  You are doing two different distances so of course it measured different ticks, however it still means nothing, there is still no contraction and all you have shown is light takes more time to travel a further a distance which is quite obvious.   So what is your big reveal that is going to wow me? 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 19:33:30
tA=0.75s

tB=1.5s

thinks that's correct now?

Quote
What are those numbers supposed to represent?

They represent the time it takes light to travel ebb and flow in a moving carriage.

Quote
Anyway David, what i have been trying to explain to you is that it means nothing.  There is no contraction of space or the carriage. There is only objectively  a variance in distance that gives you a variance in tick rate.

Quote
There is a reduction of ticks for moving clocks compared to stationary clocks, and the slowing of clocks in the real universe matches up with the increased distances that light travels on light clocks set perpendicular to their direction of travel and with length-contracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel, but until you can produce the right numbers or read what's happening on interactive diagrams correctly, you'll continue to misunderstand all of this and I don't have the time to drag you kicking and screaming through the rest of it if your learning speed is going to stay so low. You need help from AGI and I'd rather put the time into building that AGI.
 

Slowing clocks?  what on earth are you talking about?  the only slowing down is the subjective parlour trick you are trying to introduce which means nothing and shows nothing.

p.s think my numbers should be 0.67s and 2.01s  sorry keep changing my mind
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 19:52:04

* lefty.jpg (121.96 kB . 1920x1080 - viewed 4630 times)

Yes I made this way up.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 19:59:22

* lefty1.jpg (292.33 kB . 1920x1080 - viewed 4617 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 23/05/2017 20:11:30
Quote from: David
The light in the moving clock would be produced at a lower frequency as the mechanism producing it would be slowed by movement through space, but it would also vary, becoming more blue when the light pulse is on the longer forward paths through its clock and more red when moving rearward on the short paths.
Could you add the doppler effect to your simulation with the contracted distance? Then we could see with our own eyes if the system tics more slowly than the source or not. Your source could emit a dot each second for instance.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 22:44:12
Could you add the doppler effect to your simulation with the contracted distance? Then we could see with our own eyes if the system tics more slowly than the source or not. Your source could emit a dot each second for instance.

It would be better to make a new diagram for that rather than messing up the existing one, but it would also take a lot of time and effort to create it, and I'd rather leave that work to someone else. JavaScript is not good at doing graphics and it takes a lot of trial and error to build things and line everything up properly, with each browser needing a different alignment set up for it and with browser updates sometimes messing the alignment up so that the dots are no longer where they're supposed to be. The light pulses are done using a full stop ("."  - yes, it's a piece of punctuation) and the MMX apparatus is an image file because the only other way of drawing lines is to use lots of "_" and "|" characters and then write code to move each one around if the object has to move. There was an old system for doing graphics along with JavaScript, but it was discontinued and the older versions of my programs became obsolete overnight. The replacement system was SVG which is a horrific bloated mess that I decided not to learn, not least because it too could have been discontinued at the drop of a hat too, but also because when I tried out the example code on the site behind SVG it didn't work on my machine at all, so I came up with ways of using JavaScript itself to do graphics in combination with HTML and then rewrote my programs to work that way. Even so, it's so much effort that I really don't want to have to write another graphics program in JavaScript ever again (or indeed any program in JavaScript as the language does not agree with the way I'm comfortable writing code - it too is a nightmarish mess).

But is it really necessary? You can already see ticks in the existing interactive diagrams - a tick occurs when the light diverges from the semi-silvered mirror and another occurs when the light gets back to the semi-silvered mirror. If the diagram illustrated a pair of light clocks, the emitter and receiver would both be located at the semi-silvered mirror and a new pair of light pulses would be sent out along the arms as soon as the first one returned. You should be able to imagine that happening without having to see it. You can already see how long the delay is between ticks and compare it against the action on the stationary MMX apparatus on the left of the screen.

I can see though that it would be nice to have a program that puts out lots of light pulses per cycle rather than just one because you'd be able to get a feel for how often they pass a stationary point (or a point on a moving object), but I can already imagine that such a program would immediately lead to certain people complaining about the rate at which the light pulses are generated because they'll insist that they should be sent out one for every second of absolute time instead of the slowed time of the moving device, so then another, smaller co-moving light clock would have to be programmed in to trigger the release of each light pulse on the larger clock, and then a string of other misplaced objections would follow while I spend weeks or months modifying the program to try to illustrate more and more things that they will simply continue to misunderstand or fail to see regardless. I'm not prepared to do that - it's a job for AGI to do and not one for me.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2017 23:33:29
Is this correct now? my final answer

* ruler1.jpg (110.31 kB . 1765x505 - viewed 4597 times)

All the even numbers would be equal in length, and all the odd numbers would be equal in length.


2  0.66666666666
3  1.33333333333
4  0.66666666666
5  1.33333333333
6  0.66666666666
7  1.33333333333
8  0.66666666666

2+3=2.s

20cm + 40 cm = 60cm

At rest it takes 2 seconds for a round trip of 60cm.

In motion it takes 2 seconds for a round trip of 60cm.

Wheres your problem?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 00:04:41
The clocks do measure a different amount of ticks for the obviousness that you are changing  the distance.  You are doing two different distances so of course it measured different ticks, however it still means nothing, there is still no contraction and all you have shown is light takes more time to travel a further a distance which is quite obvious.   So what is your big reveal that is going to wow me?

Five points:-

(A) A moving clock records fewer ticks than a stationary one in a given length of time, so it is not recording time, but is merely counting cycles. That is what all clocks do.

(B) A light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of movement therefore records fewer ticks than a stationary clock.

(C) An uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel (rather than perpendicular to it) will record fewer ticks than a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel, but you can't see that yet because you've only attempted the maths for one of the two cases, and you haven't even got that right.

(D) A correctly length-contracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel will record the same number of ticks as a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(E) The null result of the MMX shows that the real universe length-contracts things in their direction of travel.

However, you won't agree with half of that because you still can't apply valid methods with the maths, even though I've shown you how to do it all for the part you keep tripping up on. I've tried to get you to the point where you can fit correct numbers to the non-perpendicular case, but you still aren't there and I think you're doing everything you can to avoid getting there. We haven't even started on the perpendicular case, so you still a long way from the point where you can compare the results and see that they don't tick at the same rate as each other. It doesn't look as if you're capable of completing the journey through this stuff, and the reason is most likely down to you not wanting to know that your position on it has been wrong all this time, based on a long string of errors in your thinking. I don't have time to fix it all for you - it's like pushing a car while the person sitting in it is applying the brakes as hard as they can.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2017 00:08:32
The clocks do measure a different amount of ticks for the obviousness that you are changing  the distance.  You are doing two different distances so of course it measured different ticks, however it still means nothing, there is still no contraction and all you have shown is light takes more time to travel a further a distance which is quite obvious.   So what is your big reveal that is going to wow me?

Five points:-

(A) A moving clock records fewer ticks than a stationary one in a given length of time, so it is not recording time, but is merely counting cycles. That is what all clocks do.

(B) A light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of movement therefore records fewer ticks than a stationary clock.

(C) An uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel (rather than perpendicular to it) will record fewer ticks than a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel, but you can't see that yet because you've only attempted the maths for one of the two cases, and you haven't even got that right.

(D) A correctly length-contracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel will record the same number of ticks as a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(E) The null result of the MMX shows that the real universe length-contracts things in their direction of travel.

However, you won't agree with half of that because you still can't apply valid methods with the maths, even though I've shown you how to do it all for the part you keep tripping up on. I've tried to get you to the point where you can fit correct numbers to the non-perpendicular case, but you still aren't there and I think you're doing everything you can to avoid getting there. We haven't even started on the perpendicular case, so you still a long way from the point where you can compare the results and see that they don't tick at the same rate as each other. It doesn't look as if you're capable of completing the journey through this stuff, and the reason is most likely down to you not wanting to know that your position on it has been wrong all this time, based on a long string of errors in your thinking. I don't have time to fix it all for you - it's like pushing a car while the person sitting in it is applying the brakes as hard as they can.
I do not think you viewed my latest last post.  My numbers are correct.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2017 00:14:13
FIFY :  Only measure the time using the front detector and count in 2's.

P.s I did warn David to be armed with more than subjective ''parlour tricks''.   I objectively ''see'' no problems in my results conclusion.

added ; my scale I am using is

30cm:299 792 458 m

speed ratio 2:1
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 24/05/2017 15:15:45

You still haven't taken in the scale of your monumental error! The 7.4641t is a time and not a distance. The distance is that time multiplied by 10 (which comes from the 10cm distance). The train moves over seventy four cm before the light reaches the front mirror.



There is no such thing as time. There is only one distance measured by another distance that cycles. Light will hit the front mirror in 7.461 cm in 10 cm length. It will hit the front mirror in 0.74671 n a 1 cm length. It is a ratio. A 100 cm cell length will be 74.61 ratio. There is no fixed time only a fixed ratio to c for energy of motion. In a frame time measurement is the same ratio for a cm as a km.

I am confused to my monumental error?

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/05/2017 16:52:04
Quote from: David
You can already see how long the delay is between ticks and compare it against the action on the stationary MMX apparatus on the left of the screen.
Of course, if we wait till the dots hit the detector to send a new one, then there will be more time between the dots on the right diagram, but if we send them at one second interval on both diagrams, it seems to me that they will be detected at the same frequency on both detectors, because there will be no doppler effect to alter the frequency. Time depends on the frequencies of vibrating or rotating bodies, not on the distance they travel through the fabric of space during their rotation or vibration, so why would it depend on the distance light travels instead of depending on its frequency? It is not the distance the earth's surface travels in space that determines the sidereal day length, it's when the same star passes at the zenith. It is not the distance traveled by a pendulum that determines the tics of a clock either, it's when it passes in the middle of its course.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 17:11:21
I do not think you viewed my latest last post.  My numbers are correct.

If they're correct, you should be able to insert them into the right places [between square brackets] in the following list:-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


You say that your latest numbers are correct, but I haven't seen you produce the right answers yet to put into (8 ) and (9), and those are the numbers you should be calculating. Also, you still haven't told me whether you agree with the number in square brackets for (7). Until these [= ...] parts remain unfilled with your numbers, you have not completed your assignment.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 17:22:31
There is no such thing as time. There is only one distance measured by another distance that cycles.

What is a distance that cycles? Without time, how can it cycle?

Quote
Light will hit the front mirror in 7.461 cm in 10 cm length.

If you think light can go from the rear of a 10cm to the front while the front is racing away from it and can catch up with it while only covering 7.461cm, you must be out of your tree.

Quote
It will hit the front mirror in 0.74671 n a 1 cm length. It is a ratio. A 100 cm cell length will be 74.61 ratio. There is no fixed time only a fixed ratio to c for energy of motion. In a frame time measurement is the same ratio for a cm as a km.

I am confused to my monumental error?

Imagine you're on an athletics track, 100m from the finish line. You can run at 10m/s (and you have a remarkable gift of being able to reach that speed in an instant from a standing start). There's another runner who will start 10m ahead of you in the race, but he can only run at 8.66m/s (a speed which he too can reach in an instant). How far will you have to run before you catch up with him? Can you really catch him after only 7.641m?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2017 17:40:23
I do not think you viewed my latest last post.  My numbers are correct.

If they're correct, you should be able to insert them into the right places [between square brackets] in the following list:-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


You say that your latest numbers are correct, but I haven't seen you produce the right answers yet to put into (8 ) and (9), and those are the numbers you should be calculating. Also, you still haven't told me whether you agree with the number in square brackets for (7). Until these [= ...] parts remain unfilled with your numbers, you have not completed your assignment.

I am finding it hard to fill in the brackets because I am finding it hard to change to your way of doing it and still trying to understand so I  put the answers in the correct places.
I am getting close to understanding you, I understand you are saying it takes 2 thirds of second for one one event in which I replied 0.6666666s
In my last diagram I stopped the carriage at the next station allowing me to retain synchronous time by taking the delay out by being at rest in the station.

''(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]''

0.6666666s however that is the first part of my trip.




Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 17:44:47
Of course, if we wait till the dots hit the detector to send a new one, then there will be more time between the dots on the right diagram, but if we send them at one second interval on both diagrams, it seems to me that they will be detected at the same frequency on both detectors, because there will be no doppler effect to alter the frequency.

If you use a smaller light clock to govern the rate at which red dots are sent out from the laser, that rate will slow for the same reason the dots take longer to complete their journey through the MMX apparatus - the light clock governing their release will take twice as long to generate each tick. That means that light pulses will leave the laser twice as often on the stationary apparatus as they do on the one moving at 87%c.

Quote
Time depends on the frequencies of vibrating or rotating bodies, not on the distance they travel through the fabric of space during their rotation or vibration, so why would it depend on the distance light travels instead of depending on its frequency?

If your clock depends on something vibrating, its vibration rate will be slowed by its movement through space in the same way as light is slowed. The mechanism of all clocks involves communications at the speed of light, so they are all doing the same thing as a light clock - their mechanisms are merely disguised. If, for example, you have a piece of metal vibrating and producing a musical note, the ability of the material to slow, stop, accelerate the other way, slow, stop, accelerate back the way again, etc. is all governed by forces that apply at the speed of light, so if you increase the distance through space over which these forces are having to operate, you will slow their functionality to the same degree as with a light clock. The musical note will be an octave lower if the piece of metal is moving through space at 87%c, but anyone moving with it will have their functionality slowed to match, so they will not hear it as a lower pitch. So, you can wire up any kind of clock you like to the laser to govern the rate at which it pulses and it will tick half as often if it's moving through space at 87%c than if it's stationary.

Quote
It is not the distance the earth's surface travels in space that determines the sidereal day length, it's when the same star passes at the zenith. It is not the distance traveled by a pendulum that determines the tics of a clock either, it's when it passes in the middle of its course.

If you view the Earth from a frame of reference through which the Earth is moving at 87%c, you will see it take twice as long to rotate than if you view it from the frame in which the Earth is stationary. If the Earth is actually stationary relative to the fabric of space, what you see from the frame in which it appears to be moving at 87%c will be an illusion and it will actually be you that is living in slow motion, but if the Earth is actually moving at 87%c through the fabric of space, it really will be taking twice as long to rotate. The same thing applies to a pendulum - if the pendulum is sitting on a planet moving through space at 87%c, it will tick at half the rate of an identical pendulum sitting on an identical planet that's stationary.

The only way we could get a clock to tick at the same rate regardless of its speed of travel through space would be to make one that uses superluminal communications for the forces acting between its parts, but no such clocks have been invented, and they won't be invented until the speed of light barrier can be broken by something. Every clock has parts which influence each other by forces acting at the speed of light. The only things that might exist that have no separation between their parts cannot serve as clocks.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 17:55:23
I am finding it hard to fill in the brackets because I am finding it hard to change to your way of doing it and still trying to understand so I  put the answers in the correct places.
I am getting close to understanding you, I understand you are saying it takes 2 thirds of second for one one event in which I replied 0.6666666s
In my last diagram I stopped the carriage at the next station allowing me to retain synchronous time by taking the delay out by being at rest in the station.

''(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]''

0.6666666s however that is the first part of my trip.

If the first part of your trip is the part where the light is moving from the front of the train to the rear, then that's the 2/3 needed for (7), so you now appear to have agreed with it. You also appeared to be in agreement with all the points (1) to (6) that come before it. So, what you now need to do is calculate the numbers for (8 ) and (9). To do that, you need to work out how far the train travels in 2/3 of a second at 0.5c, and how far light travels in 2/3 of a second at c. You can do that. Maybe we'll be able to move onto the perpendicular clock some day soon too, because step (10 ) is easy to do - it's just a matter of adding together some of the numbers that you've already collected in the earlier points.

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 24/05/2017 18:15:42

What is a distance that cycles? Without time, how can it cycle?
A cycle is the distance light moves between mirrors and back. They are interchangeable.

 
Quote
If you think light can go from the rear of a 10cm to the front while the front is racing away from it and can catch up with it while only covering 7.461cm, you must be out of your tree. 

How did you know I had a tree house? Anyway if you are chasing a mirror with light and the mirror is moving at 0.866 then the light will catch the front mirror in the direction of travel in 0.7461 to 1 cm. 7.461 in 10 cm and 74.61 in 100 cm. Its just a ratio to one. Can you explain the problem I must be thick.

Imagine you're on an athletics track, 100m from the finish line. You can run at 10m/s (and you have a remarkable gift of being able to reach that speed in an instant from a standing start). There's another runner who will start 10m ahead of you in the race, but he can only run at 8.66m/s (a speed which he too can reach in an instant). How far will you have to run before you catch up with him? Can you really catch him after only 7.641m?
[/quote]

Hint, The front mirror had a head start.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 19:48:00

What is a distance that cycles? Without time, how can it cycle?
A cycle is the distance light moves between mirrors and back. They are interchangeable.

A cycle involves movement or change which is carried out over time. A distance doesn't.

Quote
Anyway if you are chasing a mirror with light and the mirror is moving at 0.866 then the light will catch the front mirror in the direction of travel in 0.7461 to 1 cm. 7.461 in 10 cm and 74.61 in 100 cm. Its just a ratio to one. Can you explain the problem I must be thick.

It will catch it in 0.7461 what? Are you seriously telling me that the light moves 7.461cm from the back of the carriage and somehow manages to catch the front of the carriage at that point even though the carriage started 10cm ahead of it and has moved further on ahead during the time the light has moved 7.461cm? I don't know how you get it to pull off that trick.

Quote
Quote
Imagine you're on an athletics track, 100m from the finish line. You can run at 10m/s (and you have a remarkable gift of being able to reach that speed in an instant from a standing start). There's another runner who will start 10m ahead of you in the race, but he can only run at 8.66m/s (a speed which he too can reach in an instant). How far will you have to run before you catch up with him? Can you really catch him after only 7.641m?

Hint, The front mirror had a head start.

Yes, and so does the runner (representing the mirror) that you (representing the light) are chasing on the track. You run 7.461m and are still short of where the other runner started, but he's run further on ahead during that time. It is not credible that you could be so stupid as to think you could catch him so soon, so the only rational explanation of what's going on here is that you're playing avoidance games as you don't like where the maths is leading you, and if you're going to go on doing that, I'm not going to waste any more of my time discussing this stuff with you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2017 20:05:49
I am finding it hard to fill in the brackets because I am finding it hard to change to your way of doing it and still trying to understand so I  put the answers in the correct places.
I am getting close to understanding you, I understand you are saying it takes 2 thirds of second for one one event in which I replied 0.6666666s
In my last diagram I stopped the carriage at the next station allowing me to retain synchronous time by taking the delay out by being at rest in the station.

''(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]''

0.6666666s however that is the first part of my trip.
. So, what you now need to do is calculate the numbers for (8 ) and (9). To do that, you need to work out how far the train travels in 2/3 of a second at 0.5c, and how far light travels in 2/3 of a second at c. You can do that. Maybe we'll be able to move onto the perpendicular clock some day soon too, because step (10 ) is easy to do - it's just a matter of adding together some of the numbers that you've already collected in the earlier points.



Oh you mean 199861638.667m  and 49965409.6667m

added - I am not happy the second amount is correct so have re-done it below

(299792458/3)*2=2/3 ? = 199861638.667m?

199861638.667/2=99930819.3333   m?

p.s I quite like learning and have to work things out, thank you for the mental exercises.

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d = 99930819.3333   m

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d = 199861638.667m


8+9=299792458m   

Sorry for taking my time with the correct answer, it did not sink in right away what you was asking.

added- no, my second answer is still wrong....
 (8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d =49965409.6667m   

My first answer was correct after all.

669f179fefa6c40252b61b4cdf36798d.gif/2=.5c d1/3

added- lol now I am unsure, perhaps I should clear my mind and start again .   

added - sorry I was seeing your question ambiguously , I think you are just asking for one third of the distance which is 99930819.3333m.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 21:16:06
The numbers you've put in for (8 ) and (9) are now correct...although you've subsequently edited in an alternative answer for (8 ) which is wrong. If you decide to go with the correct answer, then it'll just be number (10 ) left to deal with, and there are three numbers needed there:-

The first one can be found by adding your answer to (4) to your answer for (7) because the time for the entire round trip is going to be the time taken for the first part of the trip plus the time for the second part of the trip.

The second number you need to calculate is the total distance that the light has travelled through space during the round trip, so you need to add your answer for (6) to your answer for (9).

The final number you need to calculate is the total distance that the train has travelled through space during the round trip, so you need to add your answer for (5) to your answer to (8 ). The number you produce for this should be half the size of the distance that your light has travelled.


(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= 99,930,819.3333]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= 199,861638.667]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...m] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...m], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


If you can fill in the missing three numbers in (10 ) and if they are compatible with my numbers, we will have reached agreement on how the non-perpendicular light clock behaves, and then we'll be able to move on to the second half of the process where we explore the performance of the perpendicular light clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2017 21:34:31
The numbers you've put in for (8 ) and (9) are now correct...although you've subsequently edited in an alternative answer for (8 ) which is wrong. If you decide to go with the correct answer, then it'll just be number (10 ) left to deal with, and there are three numbers needed there:-

The first one can be found by adding your answer to (4) to your answer for (7) because the time for the entire round trip is going to be the time taken for the first part of the trip plus the time for the second part of the trip.

The second number you need to calculate is the total distance that the light has travelled through space during the round trip, so you need to add your answer for (6) to your answer for (9).

The final number you need to calculate is the total distance that the train has travelled through space during the round trip, so you need to add your answer for (5) to your answer to (8 ). The number you produce for this should be half the size of the distance that your light has travelled.


(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= 99,930,819.3333]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= 199,861638.667]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...m] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...m], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


If you can fill in the missing three numbers in (10 ) and if they are compatible with my numbers, we will have reached agreement on how the non-perpendicular light clock behaves, and then we'll be able to move on to the second half of the process where we explore the performance of the perpendicular light clock.

10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t = 2.6666666666s

The light has moved 2 2/3d = 799446554.667m through space

The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d = 399723277.333m

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 21:56:10
So, the final version of assignment 1 (the light clock aligned with its direction of travel) is as follows, and we appear to be in agreement on it (for now, at least):-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= 99,930,819.3333]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= 199,861638.667]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= 2.6666666666s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= 799,446,554.667m] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= 399723277.333m], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.

_________________________________________________________________


Before we move on to assignment 2, there's just important thing we should try to find agreement on now. When we compare the moving light clock on our train with an identical one that's stationary, we will see the stationary clock complete a tick in 2 seconds, but the moving clock won't complete its tick until 2 2/3 of a second have gone by, so the moving clock is ticking at a slower rate than the stationary one. Are you prepared to agree with that.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2017 21:59:52


_________________________________________________________________


Before we move on to assignment 2, there's just important thing we should try to find agreement on now. When we compare the moving light clock on our train with an identical one that's stationary, we will see the stationary clock complete a tick in 2 seconds, but the moving clock won't complete its tick until 2 2/3 of a second have gone by, so the moving clock is ticking at a slower rate than the stationary one. Are you prepared to agree with that.


Yes, at this stage you have been objective, you have not tried to add anymore than it is, the stationary clock ticks faster than the clock in motion.

added - however they are still synchronous. While the stationary clock measures 2 seconds, the light in the clock in motion is in the 2 second position although it as not reached the detector.

p.s my previous diagram
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2017 22:10:28

* ruler3.jpg (125.04 kB . 1765x505 - viewed 4748 times)

The stationary clock will read 2.6666666s when the clock in motion reads 2 seconds.   The 2.66666s would be the correct time. 2s=2.666666s
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/05/2017 22:22:49
Quote from: David
If you use a smaller light clock to govern the rate at which red dots are sent out from the laser, that rate will slow for the same reason the dots take longer to complete their journey through the MMX apparatus - the light clock governing their release will take twice as long to generate each tick.
We don't really know what produces the light frequencies that we observe, but I suspect that atoms are not using light clocks to produce them. For the moment, light clocks are only mind experiments that help us to understand motion, they might not exist at all in nature, and we might not even be able to make one if we tried. What about a laser, can it make a light clock? Not really, because its frequency does not depend on the distance between the mirrors, it depends on the frequency emitted by its atoms. Can two hydrogen atoms forming a molecule constitute a light clock? If one of the wavelengths they emit was the same as their bond length, we could imagine that they use it to stay on sync, but could they do so while traveling through aether since light would take more time one way than the other? I think so, because there would be no doppler effect between them, because the length added or subtracted to the wave at emission would be exactly cancelled by the one subtracted or added to it at detection, which means that the two atoms could still use that light to stay on sync whatever their speed through aether and whatever their position with regard to the motion. By the way, that wavelength would be in the hard x-rays range, so it could be produced by the inner electrons, and it is also close to the bonding energy of such a molecule.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2017 22:26:26
Quote from: David
If you use a smaller light clock to govern the rate at which red dots are sent out from the laser, that rate will slow for the same reason the dots take longer to complete their journey through the MMX apparatus - the light clock governing their release will take twice as long to generate each tick.
We don't really know what produces the light frequencies that we observe, but I suspect that atoms are not using light clocks to produce them. For the moment, light clocks are only mind experiments that help us to understand motion, they might not exist at all in nature, and we might not even be able to make one if we tried. What about a laser, can it make a light clock? Not really, because its frequency does not depend on the distance between the mirrors, it depends on the frequency emitted by its atoms. Can two hydrogen atoms forming a molecule constitute a light clock? If one of the wavelengths they emit was the same as their bond length, we could imagine that they use it to stay on sync, but could they do so while traveling through aether since light would take more time one way than the other? I think so, because there would be no doppler effect between them, because the length added or subtracted to the wave at emission would be exactly cancelled by the one subtracted or added to it at detection, which means that the two atoms could still use that light to stay on sync whatever their speed through aether and whatever their position with regard to the motion. By the way, that wavelength would be in the hard x-rays range, so it could be produced by the inner electrons, and it is also close to the bonding energy of such a molecule.
We can make a light clock by using a strobe emitting at a constant speed over a constant distance. Not even that difficult to be honest. 
Using the rate of detection to measure time, the rate would always be constant.
FLASH,DETECT,FLASH,DETECT,FLASH, DETECT, TICK AND TOCK


Also this is a way to physically measure the speed of light.


detect...............detect...............detect
..........time....................time..................

t=d

Imagine a device that is 10 meters long, at one end a strobe emitting 1 pulse every 10 seconds.

Now imagine at the other end of the device is a detector, it will detect 1 pulse every 10m travelled.

At this stage we do not know the speed of light.

However we have a graph running at detector end, the space between detects represents the 10 meters the light has travelled, of course we also have a time line on the graph so we can work out how long it took for the light to travel the 10 m.
We then can work out the speed.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/05/2017 00:43:54
Okay then: it's time for Assignment 2 - the perpendicular light clock:-

This time we have to put our clock sideways across the train so that it is aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, but there's no reason why you shouldn't use a much bigger train and make this one as wide as the previous train was long. I will continue to work with my own numbers and you can see how well yours match up with mine. The maths involves very few stages this time, but it may use methods that you aren't yet comfortable with.

Before we can start crunching any numbers, we need to think about how light is going to get from one mirror to the other when movement of the train will mean that it has to travel at an angle if it's to hit the mirrors rather than going perpendicular to the train and landing where the mirrors used to be instead. If you look at the laser in my interactive diagrams of the MMX again ( http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html ) you will see that it is aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, but its sideways movement steers the light inside it into following the correct angle of path needed to take it to where the mirror is going to be so that the light can hit it successfully.

You can easily see that the angle at which the light actually goes through space will not be perpendicular to the train, but the angle is also different for different speeds of travel by the train. If the train moves at 0.5c, the angle of the light's path will be 30 degrees to the perpendicular, whereas if the train moves at 0.866c the angle will be 60 degrees instead. However, you should insist on seeing proof that it has to go at those angles for those speeds, and you will then need to have an efficient mathematical method to apply to work out which angles go with which speeds.

You should maybe start with a trial-and-error method on a piece of paper as that will allow you to test different angles. Draw the two mirrors in their initial positions (which you can label as A and B), then draw parallel lines from them right across the paper running in the direction in which the train is moving. Then move the train the distance you think it might move in one tick of the clock at 0.5c and mark where the mirrors will be once it's moved that far (with these points labelled as A" and B"). Once you've done that, you should draw the mirrors again where they would be with the train half way between those two positions (labelling them as A' and B'). You can now draw a line at an angle from A to B' and another line from B' to A". Then get a ruler and measure those two lines. They should be the same length as each other every time you do this. Add them together. If the angle is right for that speed of travel of the train, the length you have just measured for the two sloping lines should be exactly twice the distance the train has moved. I've drawn a diagram of my own to give you an idea of what will happen, so see the attachment below. The red attempt failed because the distance light has to travel along on the sloping red lines is much longer than twice the length of the horizontal red line at the bottom. The black attempt also failed because the combined length of the sloping black lines is less than twice as long as the horizontal black line at the bottom. The blue attempt looks reasonably good though - it was drawn without measuring anything, so it'll be slightly out, but it's clearly giving us an angle close to the predicted 30 degree angle.

How can we actually calculate the correct angle mathematically then? If you start at the blue B' and draw a vertical line downwards from there until it hits the horizontal line that the A mirror moves along (and by chance it will hit it near to where I put the red A" mirror location), it will hit that line at 90 degrees, so we have a right-angled triangle (with the corners A, blue B' and a point next to or possibly right on top of red A"). We also know that the height of this new line is the width of the train, so that's a known length. Perhaps we can apply that funny soh cah toa trig stuff using sin, cos or tan on a calculator. We don't know the angle the light goes at yet because that's what we're trying to work out, so we need another length before we can apply trig. We don't know how far the train will go before the light can get back to the first mirror to complete a cycle, so we don't have the length of the horizontal side of the triangle, except that we do know that the light must go exactly twice as far as the mirror does if the train's moving at 0.5c.

Aha! It turns out that we don't even need to use the length of the vertical line on the triangle running from the blue A' to the red B" because we already know the ratio of the other two sides to each other: the length from A to the red B" is half as long as the length from A to the blue B', and so long as we use numbers related to each other by the right ratio for these two lines, we are guaranteed to get the correct angle out of this. So, let's call the horizontal line on the triangle 0.5 and the sloping line 1. We can then apply the soh (sine of the angle = opposite over hypotenuse) or cah (cosine of the angle = adjacent over hypotenuse) rules to calculate the other angles of the triangle. With soh we can get the angle at blue A' (between the sloping side of the triangle and the vertical line running down from there): sine of that angle = opposite/hypotenuse, so that's 0.5/1, and that equals 0.5. So, we simply use arcsin(0.5) on a calculator to get the angle, and the calculator spits out the number 30. That's our 30 degrees. To find the function arcsin on a scientific calculator, you usually have to press a key with shift, inv (inverse) or 2ndf (second function) followed by the key with "sin" on it. With some calculators you would type the 0.5 in first and then type inv and sin, but on other calculators you have to type shift sin first and then type in the 0.5.

[The cah route gives you the other angle: arccosine of the angle at A = 0.5/1, so again it's just a matter of typing 0.5 inv cos or shift cos 0.5, and the calculator gives us the answer 60 degrees.]

This method works for any speed of the train, so if it's going at 0.866c, we know the ratio of its speed to the speed of light and the distances they both travel will be 0.866 to 1. Again we can do arcsin 0.866/1, and again the number we're dividing by is 1, so it makes no difference to the 0.866. The result is that all we need do is type 0.866 inv sin, or shift sin 0.866 and the calculator will give us the answer 60 degrees for the angle at the top of the triangle.

If you don't have a scientific calculator and don't know how to find the one that's likely included with your operating system, you can use my JavaScript one online instead: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/maths/3.html - it has an inv/2nd button, but it also has direct asin, acos and atan buttons which you can use instead. So, type 0.5 or 0.866 or any other speed for the train into it and then click on the asin button to get the angle the light goes at relative to a line perpendicular to the direction of travel of the train.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/05/2017 09:19:06
Okay then: it's time for Assignment 2 - the perpendicular light clock:-

This time we have to put our clock sideways across the train so that it is aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, but there's no reason why you shouldn't use a much bigger train and make this one as wide as the previous train was long. I will continue to work with my own numbers and you can see how well yours match up with mine. The maths involves very few stages this time, but it may use methods that you aren't yet comfortable with.



Ok, before I start , you do realise that if the train travels down a  slope it makes it easier to measure the light?



* tri.jpg (5.28 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4775 times)


You do also realise light does not do this?

My answer at a glance , 

at rest

5.s one way trip

10.s round trip

in motion
3.s
7.s return
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/05/2017 09:31:16
Yea that is my answers


* tri1.jpg (8.75 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4751 times)

Now I have given the answer to the angle I provided without knowing the speed of the carriage, however I am sure with it being maths, I can get the results to fit a speed of the carriage.
However before we move on from the last assignment , you still avoided my question, I am still waiting for the proof of the physical contraction you claim exists.  I have not observed anything of the wow factor thus far, this is pretty basic stuff.

p.s the answer to assignment 2 is a variate relative to the dimensions of the carriage.



* size.jpg (15.26 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4780 times)




Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 25/05/2017 15:03:06
Quote from: TheBox
We can make a light clock by using a strobe emitting at a constant speed over a constant distance....
Also this is a way to physically measure the speed of light.
I think the only way to measure the speed of light one way would be to use atomic clocks, but to synchronize those clocks while they are traveling in aether, we would need to know the exact speed and direction they travel with regard to it, because the synchronization signal would take more time one way than the other, but we don't know our speed in the aether, so if it exists, or if light propagates as if it was the case, I'm afraid this experiment is impossible to make.

Quote from: David
If you look at the laser in my interactive diagrams of the MMX again ( http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html ) you will see that it is aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, but its sideways movement steers the light inside it into following the correct angle of path needed to take it to where the mirror is going to be so that the light can hit it successfully.
I thought that we had an agreement on that on Facebook, but it seems that I did not understand properly what you meant. You said: (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1390222324396380&id=980220742063209&comment_id=1390316931053586&notif_t=feed_comment&notif_id=1495130883357215)

«As you say, a stationary observer to the side of the runway (and some way away from it) who caught a glimpse of the laser light would see it as coming from further back down the runway before the vehicles reach the point of closest approach, and he would see the vehicles back there at the same time, even if they are by that time at the point of closest approach and far ahead of where he sees them. That is quite different from an observer in one of the cars who sees the other car where it actually is even though the light he's seeing from it has come to his eyes from further behind.»

I thought you meant that, for the two observers in the cars, aberration would avoid them to observe the real direction of the light they exchange, which to me, meant that it would still had to be aimed at their future position to hit them, thus that if they used lasers, they would have to be tilted towards that position. Of course, this possibility raises a problem: to tilt the laser towards the right direction, we need to know our direction in aether, and we don't know.


Anybody knows why [nofollow] pops out after every link I put?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/05/2017 17:51:19
Quote from: David
If you use a smaller light clock to govern the rate at which red dots are sent out from the laser, that rate will slow for the same reason the dots take longer to complete their journey through the MMX apparatus - the light clock governing their release will take twice as long to generate each tick.
We don't really know what produces the light frequencies that we observe, but I suspect that atoms are not using light clocks to produce them.

The speed of light is also the speed of force - the atoms are held together by forces which act at the speed of light, so the exact same delays apply to those. If you move an atom through space, its functionality is slowed. It is not a light clock, but a force clock, and the two are directly equivalent.

Quote
For the moment, light clocks are only mind experiments that help us to understand motion, they might not exist at all in nature, and we might not even be able to make one if we tried.

There is nothing to stop light clocks being made. A one gigahertz processor has a clock rate of a billionth of a second. During that time, light only moves the length of a ruler. Also, the MMX is essentially a pair of light clocks, so it goes beyond thought experiments into actual measurements. We can also make radio clocks where we send signals to and fro between two points and use them as light clocks, and I do mean light, because if you were to run into radio waves fast enough, you would be able to see them as light.

Quote
What about a laser, can it make a light clock? Not really, because its frequency does not depend on the distance between the mirrors, it depends on the frequency emitted by its atoms.

That frequency is dictated by the tick rate of a force clock, and a force clock behaves exactly like a light clock because they are governed by the same speed limit.

Quote
I think the only way to measure the speed of light one way would be to use atomic clocks

That won't work because they are force clocks.

Quote
I thought you meant that, for the two observers in the cars, aberration would avoid them to observe the real direction of the light they exchange, which to me, meant that it would still had to be aimed at their future position to hit them, thus that if they used lasers, they would have to be tilted towards that position. Of course, this possibility raises a problem: to tilt the laser towards the right direction, we need to know our direction in aether, and we don't know.

There is no need to point the laser anywhere other than perpendicular to the direction of travel - the angle the light actually follows is dictated by the movement of the laser while the light is moving through it (and indeed before that in the mechanism of how the light is emitted in the first place). This relates to the "headlights effect". If you have a light bulb in the middle of a square room and you move the room at relativistic speed, one of the walls may be moving directly away from the light that's chasing it from the bulb, and the opposite wall is racing directly towards the light coming at it from the bulb, but all four (or six) walls remain equally brightly lit because the movement of the bulb through space affects the way light is spread from it with more of the light being projected forwards. An attempt by an emitter to throw a photon directly sideways will fail because of the movement of the emitter - its own speed of movement in its direction of travel is automatically passed on to the photon, affecting the angle it leaves it in.

If you were to change the alignment of the moving laser, light would not leave it in line with the laser unless the laser's pointing directly forwards or backwards, so if you aim the laser at where the target is going to be rather than at where it currently is, it will hit a point far ahead of where the target will be.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/05/2017 19:05:09
Ok, before I start , you do realise that if the train travels down a  slope it makes it easier to measure the light?

No, I don't realise that, and your numbers don't appear to realise it either.

Now I have given the answer to the angle I provided without knowing the speed of the carriage, however I am sure with it being maths, I can get the results to fit a speed of the carriage.

How can you possibly calculate the angle without involving the speed of the carriage in the calculation?

Quote
However before we move on from the last assignment , you still avoided my question, I am still waiting for the proof of the physical contraction you claim exists.  I have not observed anything of the wow factor thus far, this is pretty basic stuff.

I've answered that many times before, but you clearly weren't ready to take it in. Remember the five points that I made in post #134:-

(A) A moving clock records fewer ticks than a stationary one in a given length of time, so it is not recording time, but is merely counting cycles. That is what all clocks do.

(B) A light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of movement therefore records fewer ticks than a stationary clock.

(C) An uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel (rather than perpendicular to it) will record fewer ticks than a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(D) A correctly length-contracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel will record the same number of ticks as a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(E) The null result of the MMX shows that the real universe length-contracts things in their direction of travel.

Once you have generated the right numbers for assignment 2, you'll be able to compare the two moving light clocks and see that the perpendicular one ticks more often than the other. The MMX shows that this is not how the universe works because real light clocks which move along together always tick at the same rate as each other regardless of their alignment. We also know that the slowing of real clocks matches up to the perpendicular clock's predicted behaviour and not to the predicted behaviour of uncontracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel.

Quote
p.s the answer to assignment 2 is a variate relative to the dimensions of the carriage.

Your perpendicular light clock should be the same length as the one used in assignment 1 so that you can easily compare the numbers you get from the two assignments. Your job here is to work out how far the train moves at 0.5c while the light travels from mirror A to the far mirror (B') and back to the first one again (A"), and you need to know how to calculate the angle that the light moves away from the perpendicular. I told you how the angle can be calculated and I was hoping that you'd let me know whether you understand that method or not. If you want to find your own method for doing it, that's fine, but for it to be valid it will need to generate the same numbers. We will be stuck here until you understand the method I've spelt out to you, so I'll go through it again with a new diagram.

We want to calculate the angle x. We have a right angled triangle, but the only side of that triangle with a known length is the vertical line B'A' which has a length of d [= 299,792,458m]. However, we do know the ratio of the lengths of AA' to AB' because we know the ratio of the speed of the train to the speed of light, and that ratio is 0.5:1.

The trig rule soh tells us that sine(x) = AA'/AB'. We don't yet know the lengths AA' or AB', but we do know their ratio, so we can simply use the numbers from that ratio: sine(x) = 0.5/1. Because we're dividing a number by 1, the result will be unchanged, so we now have sine(x) = 0.5. All we need to do now is use a calculator to find x by typing in a sequence such as 0.5 inv sin or shift sin 0.5 (depending on the order the calculator wants you to press the keys in.

Having done that and got the number 30 degrees from the calculator, we can now set about working out the actual lengths of the lines AA' and AB'. The only real length we know for the triangle is the vertical line A'B', but that's enough to do the rest now as we also have an angle to work with. All we need to do is apply more trig: tan(x) = AA'/A'B', and cosine(x) =  A'B'/AB'. We can rearrange those a little before we pick up the calculator (and note that I'm going to use an asterisk for the multiplication symbol to avoid confusion with the angle x): AA' =  tan(x) * A'B', and AB' = A'B'/cos(x). Now the calculator is used: AA' = 0.57735, and AB' = 1.1547. Note that I have used 1 as the length of A'B' because my length unit is d, and d = 299,792,458m. To fit with all your previous calculations, you should use 299792458 instead of 1 so that your answers come out in metres.

If you double 0.57735, you'll get 1.1547, so these answers fit with the 0.5:1 ratio that we expect them to. The lower mirror has moved from A to A" by the time the light returns to it from the top mirror, so the train has moved 1.1547d and the light has moved 2.3094d. To convert those to metres, again you'd need to multiply them by 299792458. One tick of this moving clock will take 2.3094t, and as my time unit is a second long, that's 2.3094s.

We now have three tick rates. The stationary clock ticks once every 2 seconds. The moving clock from assignment 1 ticks once for every 2 2/3 seconds of the stationary clock. The moving clock from assignment 2 ticks once for every 2.3094 seconds of the stationary clock.

Now, lets see how many pages of posts it takes you to get up to speed with that. On the up side though, it looks as if you might reach the finish line before GoC, which no one reading this thread at the start would ever have predicted.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 25/05/2017 20:44:17
If you learn to use graphics, the problems are greatly simplified, the solutions more obvious, and less calculation.
For typical uniform motion, a horizontal x axis for object motion, and a vertical ct axis for light motion. Using a light clock with oscillation perpendicular to x, ct equals the total distance light moved inside the clock. If an object moved at c, it would move equal distances on both axes, i.e. at 45 (blue). This restricts object motion from 0 (vertical)  to less than 45. The dark lines are objects, the light lines are for measurements.

The rest frame is U , with its description on the left.
An observer A, at the midpoint of a ship moving at .5 (c=1), is represented by the line 0-At. A measures the distance to a forward mirror as d=1. At t=0 light signals are sent from A, forward and backward. If a mirror was at the back an equal distance d, light would arrive there at event R2 and light would arrive at the front mirror at event R1. For the forward path, light returns to A, event D. Rotating the forward path 180 about the midpoint H shows both trips are equal. If A assumes a pseudo rest frame, then R1 and R2 establishes an axis of simultaneity for A, 0-Ax.
In the U-frame, the ship has contracted to s and the A-clock is running slower than the U-clock by 1/gamma. (1/g=sqrt(.75)=.866)
M is a distance marker in the U frame that is coincident with the event R1.

In the pseudo rest frame A:
Ut for event D is 2gt. Since At=Ut/g, At=2t. If s=d/g, then d=gs=1.
Event R1 occurred at At=d/c=1.
A thinks the return event occurred earlier at event D' which implies R1 and M are closer by the ratio of 2t/2gt=1/g, Based on his clock, A thinks the world outside has contracted by 1/g including his ship.
https://app.box.com/s/1dua6bzj0e4gx4aigrfb7k4pkohpr7nj
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 25/05/2017 20:59:15
Quote from: David
The speed of light is also the speed of force
With aether, once a moving laser would emit a light pulse, the laser would progressively leave the place in aether where the pulse had been emitted, and it is at that place that an observer at rest would see the laser beam if it had been pointing at him at emission. This is what happens when we see a plane: we hear it where it was, not where we see it, and in the same token, we don't really see it where it is because it takes time for light to reach us, so if some laser light was sent from the plane to somewhere else than where we are, it would simply miss us. It is so for sound because sound waves go straight line in air after having been emitted, so light waves should behave the same in aether if it exists. But this is not what the inertial frame principle means:  a moving inertial frame can be considered not to be moving, in such a way that light can be considered to travel sideways through space in the light clock mind experiment, so it manifestly doesn't fit with aether. With aether, a laser beam aimed at 90 degree between our two moving cars would miss us if we would travel fast enough or if we were far enough from one another.

I understand what you mean when you say that the speed of light would affect the forces though, but to me, with no doppler effect and no aberration to account for inside the same moving frame, whatever the speed of that frame, the light waves exchanged between two observers at rest inside the frame would always appear to carry the same energy and would always appear to come from the actual position of the source. Of course, the intensity of a wave lessens with distance, so the forces should lessen a bit for bodies moving through aether, but that effect has a lot less impact on energy than frequency, and frequency would not be affected. In my theory on motion here (http://"https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg446148#msg446148"), the frequency of the steps also stays the same while they get longer, thus while the speed increases, but light also loses some intensity while it travels from one particle to the other, and that loss cannot be accounted for by the steps, so I figured it could be attributed to gravitation because it would necessarily escape from the standing wave between the two particles. Here are those steps caused by the limited speed of the information between two bonded particles.
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 25/05/2017 22:30:55
David,

   Sorry I got busy again. You were correct and I was incorrect about light going 7.461 cell lengths (length between mirrors in this case) in ratio rather than 0.7461 length in one cell. My background is analytical chemistry and Cell length  had a different thought process. And you agreed with my decimal point for the return cell length with your numbers of 0.539. The total length of 7.5 cell lengths for light to travel its cycle. This leaves us with 8.66 cell lengths for the side ways mirror. So we haven't reached the peak of the triangle at 7.5 cell lengths of time.

Quote from: David
The speed of light is also the speed of force
With aether, once a moving laser would emit a light pulse, the laser would progressively leave the place in aether where the pulse had been emitted, and it is at that place that an observer at rest would see the laser beam if it had been pointing at him at emission. This is what happens when we see a plane: we hear it where it was, not where we see it, and in the same token, we don't really see it where it is because it takes time for light to reach us, so if some laser light was sent from the plane to somewhere else than where we are, it would simply miss us. It is so for sound because sound waves go straight line in air after having been emitted, so light waves should behave the same in aether if it exists. But this is not what the inertial frame principle means:  a moving inertial frame can be considered not to be moving, in such a way that light can be considered to travel sideways through space in the light clock mind experiment, so it manifestly doesn't fit with aether. With aether, a laser beam aimed at 90 degree between our two moving cars would miss us if we would travel fast enough or if we were far enough from one another.

I understand what you mean when you say that the speed of light would affect the forces though, but to me, with no doppler effect and no aberration to account for inside the same moving frame, whatever the speed of that frame, the light waves exchanged between two observers at rest inside the frame would always appear to carry the same energy and would always appear to come from the actual position of the source. Of course, the intensity of a wave lessens with distance, so the forces should lessen a bit for bodies moving through aether, but that effect has a lot less impact on energy than frequency, and frequency would not be affected. In my theory on motion here (http://"https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg446148#msg446148"), the frequency of the steps also stays the same while they get longer, thus while the speed increases, but light also loses some intensity while it travels from one particle to the other, and that loss cannot be accounted for by the steps, so I figured it could be attributed to gravitation because it would necessarily escape from the standing wave between the two particles. Here are those steps caused by the limited speed of the information between two bonded particles.
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)

Your missing the point of light being independent of the source. In the original Aether where particles were stationary in space without spin your understanding would be correct. But if there is Aether spin of c by the particles relativity has a cause while quantum mechanics has an energy pattern regulating relativity.

In this case energy is independent of mass while mass is the source.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 00:03:23
Quote from: David
The speed of light is also the speed of force
With aether, once a moving laser would emit a light pulse, the laser would progressively leave the place in aether where the pulse had been emitted, and it is at that place that an observer at rest would see the laser beam if it had been pointing at him at emission.

Correct, and a moving observer who is for a moment at the same location as the stationary observer and who is keeping pace with the laser would see the same laser light as coming from where the laser now is rather than where the the light actually came from.

Quote
This is what happens when we see a plane: we hear it where it was, not where we see it,

It's worth remembering that if the light from the plane travelled at the speed of sound, you would see the plane further back too.

Quote
and in the same token, we don't really see it where it is because it takes time for light to reach us, so if some laser light was sent from the plane to somewhere else than where we are, it would simply miss us.

But to reach us, the laser has to be pointed slightly behind us (although planes aren't really far enough away for that to show up).

Quote
It is so for sound because sound waves go straight line in air after having been emitted, so light waves should behave the same in aether if it exists.

If you are moving in the same direction as the plane and at the same speed, you would (if you could somehow eliminate the racket from air rushing past your ears) hear the sound of the plane as coming from where you see the plane rather than from a long way behind it, even though the sound is coming to you from a long way behind where the plane now is.

If a powered "bullet" (one that can maintain speed and direction without being slowed by drag) was sent out from the plane at the speed of sound perpendicular to the direction of travel of the plane while you are moving along parallel to the plane's path and level with it, you can hold a two-layer target for the bullet to pass through (perhaps with the layers several yards apart) - the bullet will make two holes through the target, and when you look through those holes, you will see the plane. It's difficult to set out a really good parallel scenario though as the space fabric doesn't replicate the drag aspect.

Quote
But this is not what the inertial frame principle means:  a moving inertial frame can be considered not to be moving, in such a way that light can be considered to travel sideways through space in the light clock mind experiment, so it manifestly doesn't fit with aether. With aether, a laser beam aimed at 90 degree between our two moving cars would miss us if we would travel fast enough or if we were far enough from one another.

No - it would not miss. If the cars are on parallel paths and level with each other, they could be a whole lightyear apart and the laser light sent out from a perpendicular (to the direction of travel of the cars) laser would still hit the other car, as would a bullet sent out from a gun set up with the same alignment as the laser, though the bullet would follow a much more deviated angle than the light and would hit the other car the best part of a million years later. If you think the light has to follow the perpendicular just because the laser is pointing along the perpendicular, you are breaking the laws of nature by changing the momentum of the system.

Quote
I understand what you mean when you say that the speed of light would affect the forces though, but to me, with no doppler effect and no aberration to account for inside the same moving frame, whatever the speed of that frame, the light waves exchanged between two observers at rest inside the frame would always appear to carry the same energy and would always appear to come from the actual position of the source.

So why would you want to tinker with the alignment of the laser in my diagrams if you understand that?

Quote
Of course, the intensity of a wave lessens with distance, so the forces should lessen a bit for bodies moving through aether, but that effect has a lot less impact on energy than frequency, and frequency would not be affected.

Just as light is focused forwards more strongly and cancels out the difference, so must force be if the square room round a bulb is to retain the right shape for the walls to remain evenly lit. The MMX suggests that matter length-contracts in a manner consistent with forces and light behaving the same way in that regard.

Quote
In my theory on motion here[/url], the frequency of the steps also stays the same while they get longer, thus while the speed increases, but light also loses some intensity while it travels from one particle to the other, and that loss cannot be accounted for by the steps, so I figured it could be attributed to gravitation because it would necessarily escape from the standing wave between the two particles. Here are those steps caused by the limited speed of the information between two bonded particles.

I haven't read your theory yet (your links are disabled for some reason, even though one of them is to this forum - perhaps this is related to your low post count and could be part of an anti-spam mechanism), but the light intensity should adjust automatically for the speed of the system through means of the headlights effect, so there shouldn't be any apparent change to account for.

Edit:-

There's an error in what I said here:-

Quote
If you are moving in the same direction as the plane and at the same speed, you would (if you could somehow eliminate the racket from air rushing past your ears) hear the sound of the plane as coming from where you see the plane rather than from a long way behind it, even though the sound is coming to you from a long way behind where the plane now is.

In terms of the volume in each ear, it would be equal, but there would be a time delay between one ear and the other hearing it. That delay would only be cancelled out if the processing in the brain that measures the timings of the signals from each ear operated with delays of its own acting at the speed of sound, but they are not restricted to such a slow speed, and that means the plane would likely be heard some way behind where it's seen, though the equality of volume in each ear might reduce the apparent separation. Most importantly though, if we're using this case as an analogy for what happens with laser light, we don't have an equivalent case unless we introduce superluminal speeds in the processing of timings, so there is no equivalent way of detecting delays from one sensor to another one ahead of it if the signal's coming in from a co-moving source that's level with the sensors.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 00:21:06
The total length of 7.5 cell lengths for light to travel its cycle. This leaves us with 8.66 cell lengths for the side ways mirror. So we haven't reached the peak of the triangle at 7.5 cell lengths of time.

If you 7.5 cell lengths you mean just under 75cm, then you're getting there, but where do you get your 8.66 cell length figure from for the perpendicular light clock? The distance travelled by the train during the time taken for light to go from one mirror to the other on the perpendicular light clock is only 17.32cm (because tan(60)=opp/10cm, so opp=10tan(60)cm).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 26/05/2017 16:07:11
The total length of 7.5 cell lengths for light to travel its cycle. This leaves us with 8.66 cell lengths for the side ways mirror. So we haven't reached the peak of the triangle at 7.5 cell lengths of time.

If you 7.5 cell lengths you mean just under 75cm, then you're getting there, but where do you get your 8.66 cell length figure from for the perpendicular light clock? The distance travelled by the train during the time taken for light to go from one mirror to the other on the perpendicular light clock is only 17.32cm (because tan(60)=opp/10cm, so opp=10tan(60)cm).

First of all I understand your physical contraction of mass and how that corrects for equilateral light paths on a 90 degree path to motion. That is what I was taught. I do not agree with what I was taught. All you are doing is force fitting the paths of light to be the same in both directions. This fudge factor is just that a fudge factor. Lets go back to the MMX. The most accurate way to measure distance is with light. So you measure the direction of travel and you get a mile. You measure the other distance perpendicular to the direction of travel and you measure a mile. When you do the test you get a null result. This is no different than measuring the same speed of light in any frame. Of course you get a null result. Your set up was meaningless to begin with. None of your tests can pass the test of significance. So your physical contraction is based on an insignificant measurement.

Now lets look at sound again as relative to the Aether. If we have the air molecules perfectly still except for the electrons moving to transfer the sound we get a ratio of sound to distance in all directions. We have a stationary observer on the ground. When the plane is physically over head the sound just starts while the plane continues to go forward. We can use the same geometry with light. When the sound reaches you the visual position of the plane is forward of the position you hear. Now if you have two planes in parallel going the speed of sound and the sound being created in back of the pilots neither pilot could hear the sound of the other pilots engine. He might hear his own engine because he carries his own air inside the plane. Its unlikely that you can carry the Aether inside of a spaceship. So two pilots can go fast enough in space not to be able to view the other right next to you. If you looked forward in the spaceship the front of you would appear to go from 7.46 meters to 0.53 meters. Not because the distance changed physically but because light only took that distance to reach you. Your view would be magnified also because of the inverse square law would change your viewing distance.   
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 18:30:49
First of all I understand your physical contraction of mass and how that corrects for equilateral light paths on a 90 degree path to motion. That is what I was taught. I do not agree with what I was taught. All you are doing is force fitting the paths of light to be the same in both directions. This fudge factor is just that a fudge factor.

If you're now agreeing with the numbers, you should say so clearly. They show that an uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel ticks less often than an identical co-moving clock aligned perpendicular to it. The MMX is essentially such a pair of light clocks and it shows that the two clocks always remain in sync with each other. The tick rate of the perpendicular clock matches up to expectations. The tick rate of the other clock does not. We can account for the difference between the prediction and reality in a number of different ways, such as relying on magic, or by allowing light to go faster than c whenever something moves through space, but not allowing that faster speed to be exploited by other things in the same location for superluminal communication (which is ruddy hard when the exact same photons can be used by both systems, and even then there would be issues with things being where they manifestly aren't due to them being longer than they actually are), or you can go with the most sensible explanation and accept that objects simply contract in length in the exact manner that a full analysis of how the forces operate shows that they should contract, just as an orbit will contract due to some of the energy put in not showing up as movement, but as extra mass.

Quote
Lets go back to the MMX. The most accurate way to measure distance is with light. So you measure the direction of travel and you get a mile. You measure the other distance perpendicular to the direction of travel and you measure a mile. When you do the test you get a null result. This is no different than measuring the same speed of light in any frame. Of course you get a null result. Your set up was meaningless to begin with. None of your tests can pass the test of significance. So your physical contraction is based on an insignificant measurement.

That's just an assertion based on belief in voodoo. If you move the apparatus, you increase the distance that light has to travel to get through it, and that slows it down. If you don't have length-contraction operating on it, you won't always have a null result.

Quote
Now lets look at sound again as relative to the Aether. If we have the air molecules perfectly still except for the electrons moving to transfer the sound we get a ratio of sound to distance in all directions.

You might want to rewrite that bit so that it ties in with how sound actually propagates - no need to draw attention to electrons as you can just go with molecules of gas bumping into each other.

Quote
We have a stationary observer on the ground. When the plane is physically overhead the sound just starts while the plane continues to go forward. We can use the same geometry with light. When the sound reaches you the visual position of the plane is forward of the position you hear.

I edited a correction onto the end of post #163 which has some relevance to this. The analogy breaks down where two different speed limits are involved. With light, there is only one speed limit that can't be outgunned by any measurement apparatus which would need to use superluminal communications.

Quote
Now if you have two planes in parallel going the speed of sound and the sound being created in back of the pilots neither pilot could hear the sound of the other pilots engine. He might hear his own engine because he carries his own air inside the plane.

And this analogy breaks too because you can never get your vehicles up to the speed of light, meaning that light from behind can always catch them.

Quote
Its unlikely that you can carry the Aether inside of a spaceship. So two pilots can go fast enough in space not to be able to view the other right next to you.

That never happens - they always see each as other side by side.

Quote
If you looked forward in the spaceship the front of you would appear to go from 7.46 meters to 0.53 meters. Not because the distance changed physically but because light only took that distance to reach you. Your view would be magnified also because of the inverse square law would change your viewing distance.

That is nonsense - we would be able to detect that kind of visual change easily in the lab even at the relatively low speed the Earth goes round the sun, but no such visual warping occurs. Your problem is that you have come up with a wonderful theory of your own and you're determined to try to make nature conform to it rather than allowing nature to dictate the form of your theory. You are going against what nature does.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/05/2017 19:44:55
Quote from: David
The speed of light is also the speed of force
With aether, once a moving laser would emit a light pulse, the laser would progressively leave the place in aether where the pulse had been emitted, and it is at that place that an observer at rest would see the laser beam if it had been pointing at him at emission.
Correct, and a moving observer who is for a moment at the same location as the stationary observer and who is keeping pace with the laser would see the same laser light as coming from where the laser now is rather than where the the light actually came from.
Correct too, because that observer's speed in aether would produce aberration on the observed beam, and that by coincidence, that phenomenon would avoid him to know the real direction of the beam.

Quote from: David
Quote
This is what happens when we see a plane: we hear it where it was, not where we see it,
It's worth remembering that if the light from the plane traveled at the speed of sound, you would see the plane further back too.
Of course, and in this case, we would see it where we hear it.

Quote from: David
Quote
and in the same token, we don't really see it where it is because it takes time for light to reach us, so if some laser light was sent from the plane to somewhere else than where we are, it would simply miss us.
But to reach us, the laser has to be pointed slightly behind us (although planes aren't really far enough away for that to show up).
Just a precision: the observer on the plane would have to account for aberration to calculate our real position, because he would see us a bit ahead of where we would really be, so as you said, he would effectively have to point its laser a bit behind where he sees us to hit us. Incidentally, the same phenomenon would occur between the two planes: because of aberration, an observer on one of the planes would see the other plane where it actually is, so if he would aim its laser directly at it, he would miss it. 

Quote from: Andrex
Quote
It is so for sound because sound waves go straight line in air after having been emitted, so light waves should behave the same in aether if it exists.
If you are moving in the same direction as the plane and at the same speed, you would (if you could somehow eliminate the racket from air rushing past your ears) hear the sound of the plane as coming from where you see the plane rather than from a long way behind it, even though the sound is coming to you from a long way behind where the plane now is.
Correct, and I add that it would be so because of aberration.

Quote
If a powered "bullet" (one that can maintain speed and direction without being slowed by drag) was sent out from the plane at the speed of sound perpendicular to the direction of travel of the plane while you are moving along parallel to the plane's path and level with it, you can hold a two-layer target for the bullet to pass through (perhaps with the layers several yards apart) - the bullet will make two holes through the target, and when you look through those holes, you will see the plane. It's difficult to set out a really good parallel scenario though as the space fabric doesn't replicate the drag aspect.
Your bullet would travel sideways through air because it would add the motion of the plane to its own motion, but sound doesn't, so the bullet wouldn't have to suffer aberration, and sound would. I think it is a coincidence that both would appear to come from the actual position of the plane, and I also think that light has probably something to do with the production of motion because of that coincidence, that light doesn't only wait to be observed. Here is the link to my theory's thread here, but you will have to copy/paste it since I guess I am not allowed to put links yet:
thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg467891#msg467891
Here is the link to the animation:
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif

Quote from: David
Quote
But this is not what the inertial frame principle means:  a moving inertial frame can be considered not to be moving, in such a way that light can be considered to travel sideways through space in the light clock mind experiment, so it manifestly doesn't fit with aether. With aether, a laser beam aimed at 90 degree between our two moving cars would miss us if we would travel fast enough or if we were far enough from one another.
No - it would not miss. If the cars are on parallel paths and level with each other, they could be a whole lightyear apart and the laser light sent out from a perpendicular (to the direction of travel of the cars) laser would still hit the other car, as would a bullet sent out from a gun set up with the same alignment as the laser, though the bullet would follow a much more deviated angle than the light and would hit the other car the best part of a million years later. If you think the light has to follow the perpendicular just because the laser is pointing along the perpendicular, you are breaking the laws of nature by changing the momentum of the system.
It's astounding to observe the small divergences people have on certain ideas. I hope you don't mind if I insist though, because I still see contradictions when I try to apply the reference frame principle to light.

With aether, we can see very well why light cannot add the direct speed of the source to its own speed like massive bodies do, but it is less clear that it cannot add the transverse speed of the source when its own speed is perpendicular to the motion for instance, and I personally think it is probably so because we are being diverted by the use of the reference frame principle to study the motion of light. Einstein himself admitted in his introduction to his paper on SR that his two postulates were contradictory, but he didn't elaborate on the subject. Light cannot be independent from the motion of the source when it moves in the direction of that motion, and follow it when it moves perpendicular to it, and that's what the inertial frame principle means. Two moving point sources moving side by side in aether would see the light they emitted towards their future position, not the one they emitted perpendicularly to their motion, and the laser in your MM simulation sends its light perpendicularly to its motion, not towards the future position of the mirror. If we replace the laser by a point source, the light emitted perpendicularly would not reach the mirror, and the one emitted at its future position would: two directions for light, two different paths in aether, but not in the space defined by the postulates of SR.

Quote from: David
Quote
I understand what you mean when you say that the speed of light would affect the forces though, but to me, with no doppler effect and no aberration to account for inside the same moving frame, whatever the speed of that frame, the light waves exchanged between two observers at rest inside the frame would always appear to carry the same energy and would always appear to come from the actual position of the source.
So why would you want to tinker with the alignment of the laser in my diagrams if you understand that?
Simply because I think light cannot travel this way, but I don't expect you to change your mind about that. In fact, I think our ideas are like bodies resisting to acceleration: ideas cannot change without resisting automatically to the change, thus subconsciously, no matter how intelligent we are. We will thus probably go on discussing until we get tired, or until one of us suffers an intuition, which I think are due to a random process similar to mutations happening only in human minds. Good luck to us if I am right! :0)

Quote from: David
Quote
Of course, the intensity of a wave lessens with distance, so the forces should lessen a bit for bodies moving through aether, but that effect has a lot less impact on energy than frequency, and frequency would not be affected.  (http://"https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg446148#msg446148")
Just as light is focused forwards more strongly and cancels out the difference, so must force be if the square room round a bulb is to retain the right shape for the walls to remain evenly lit. The MMX suggests that matter length-contracts in a manner consistent with forces and light behaving the same way in that regard.
With aether, wether the room is contracted or not, it seems to me that the light would travel less distance to reach the approaching wall than the one that is getting away from it, and if it is so, the approaching wall should absorb a more intense light than the other. Would it?

Quote
but the light intensity should adjust automatically for the speed of the system through means of the headlights effect, so there shouldn't be any apparent change to account for.
The headlight effect is due to aberration, and if the source is not moving with regard to the room, precisely because of aberration, that source would always appear to be at its actual position for any observer in the room, so I don't see how any of them could observe that effect. In this citation from wiki, relativistic beaming is called doppler beaming, and there is no doppler effect to observe in your moving room example.

«Relativistically moving objects are beamed due to a variety of physical effects. Light aberration causes most of the photons to be emitted along the object's direction of motion. The Doppler effect changes the energy of the photons by red- or blue-shifting them. Finally, time intervals as measured by clocks moving alongside the emitting object are different from those measured by an observer on Earth due to time dilation and photon arrival time effects. How all of these effects modify the brightness, or apparent luminosity, of a moving object is determined by the equation describing the relativistic Doppler effect (which is why relativistic beaming is also known as Doppler beaming).»
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_beaming)

Wiki says that aberration causes the photons to be emitted in the direction of motion, but they say that to conform to the relativistic definition of aberration, which comes from the idea that we cannot differentiate if it is the source or the observer that is moving. With aether we can, and we thus can see that only the photons that would have been sent towards the future position of the observer would hit him. With aether, there is no aberration either at the observer if he is at rest in aether while the source is moving, whereas there is with SR.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 26/05/2017 22:29:11
David,



Quote
Its unlikely that you can carry the Aether inside of a spaceship. So two pilots can go fast enough in space not to be able to view the other right next to you.

That never happens - they always see each as other side by side.

Quote
If you looked forward in the spaceship the front of you would appear to go from 7.46 meters to 0.53 meters. Not because the distance changed physically but because light only took that distance to reach you. Your view would be magnified also because of the inverse square law would change your viewing distance.

That is nonsense - we would be able to detect that kind of visual change easily in the lab even at the relatively low speed the Earth goes round the sun, but no such visual warping occurs. Your problem is that you have come up with a wonderful theory of your own and you're determined to try to make nature conform to it rather than allowing nature to dictate the form of your theory. You are going against what nature does.

If an image (light) only goes 0.53 back relative to 7.46 in distance looking behind you, somehow you believe the one way distance for light is the same as the two way distance for a light image. Now that would be magic.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 23:18:04
Incidentally, the same phenomenon would occur between the two planes: because of aberration, an observer on one of the planes would see the other plane where it actually is, so if he would aim its laser directly at it, he would miss it.

No amount of repeating that can make it true. You are changing the momentum of the system. You are also making it impossible for a perpendicular laser to function if it's moving along at high speed because the light wouldn't be allowed to travel through it without hitting the side. Quite apart from anything else, lasers send light back and forth internally for a long time before releasing it, and as that light bounces back and forth it's following a zigzag path through space. When it's finally released, it isn't suddenly going to change path to follow the real perpendicular.

Quote from: Anthrax
Your bullet would travel sideways through air because it would add the motion of the plane to its own motion, but sound doesn't, so the bullet wouldn't have to suffer aberration, and sound would.

The sound front would be angled, but it would still hit the hearer perpendicular in the frame in which the planes are at rest, so it is just like the bullet in that regard.

Quote
thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg467891#msg467891

I'll look at it after I've posted this.

Quote
Here is the link to the animation: ...

I gave up waiting for the adverts to disappear and for the actual gif to show any sign of existing.

Quote
It's astounding to observe the small divergences people have on certain ideas. I hope you don't mind if I insist though, because I still see contradictions when I try to apply the reference frame principle to light.

As it stands, your interpretation of things would allow you to use a ring of lasers aligned perpendicular to a rocket, all pointing out sideways in many different directions (so that they cancel each other out in terms of sideways force) to accelerate that rocket. You'd have to give it a push start to get it going though.

Quote
...and the laser in your MM simulation sends its light perpendicularly to its motion, not towards the future position of the mirror. If we replace the laser by a point source, the light emitted perpendicularly would not reach the mirror, and the one emitted at its future position would: two directions for light, two different paths in aether, but not in the space defined by the postulates of SR.

Watch the light in the laser in my MMX diagrams and see which path it follows across the screen while it is moving along inside the laser - it is not moving along the perpendicular. Why then should it suddenly change direction when it leaves the laser? If you replace the laser with a point source, which will behave like a normal light bulb, you'll find that conservation of momentum throws more of the light forward. Some light leaves on the true perpendicular, but it is light which to the moving system is regarded as being sent out behind and not directly to the side.

Quote
Simply because I think light cannot travel this way, but I don't expect you to change your mind about that. In fact, I think our ideas are like bodies resisting to acceleration: ideas cannot change without resisting automatically to the change, thus subconsciously, no matter how intelligent we are. We will thus probably go on discussing until we get tired, or until one of us suffers an intuition, which I think are due to a random process similar to mutations happening only in human minds. Good luck to us if I am right! :0)

I always question my own beliefs and try to test them to destruction. If everyone else did that, there would be a lot less disagreement. It is the case though that most ideas are driven by momentum with established beliefs carrying on no matter how irrational they are, which is why most children are still having the bulk of their childhood wasted on fake education while they actually learn no faster than unschooled children who are allowed to play all day instead, but the statistics that show them gaining the same quantity and quality of qualifications by the end of the process is steadfastly ignored. It's the same with every area in politics with everyone flogging the same old failed policies for many decades instead of adapting them to fit the real world. It's just something humans generally do. But in this particular case, you're ignoring conservation of momentum.

Quote
With aether, whether the room is contracted or not, it seems to me that the light would travel less distance to reach the approaching wall than the one that is getting away from it, and if it is so, the approaching wall should absorb a more intense light than the other. Would it?

No, because the light send out backwards is weaker, having a longer wavelength, but when the wall hits it it runs into it fast enough to boost the perceived power back up to what it would be if the room was at rest. Likewise, the light going forward has a very high frequency, but when it hits the wall that's moving away from it, its power is not felt to be higher at all.

Quote
The headlight effect is due to aberration, and if the source is not moving with regard to the room, precisely because of aberration, that source would always appear to be at its actual position for any observer in the room, so I don't see how any of them could observe that effect. In this citation from wiki, relativistic beaming is called doppler beaming, and there is no doppler effect to observe in your moving room example.

The headlights effect is caused by conservation of momentum and it is not visible to people in the moving room with the light bulb. If light behaved the way you want it to, the rear wall would become brighter and the leading wall dimmer, so the people in the room could measure the room's speed of travel through space with a lightmeter. The Doppler effect aspect of this is also hidden from them, but an observer at rest who sees some of the light escaping through holes in the wall will see considerable shifts in its frequency.

Quote
Wiki says that aberration causes the photons to be emitted in the direction of motion, but they say that to conform to the relativistic definition of aberration, which comes from the idea that we cannot differentiate if it is the source or the observer that is moving. With aether we can, and we thus can see that only the photons that would have been sent towards the future position of the observer would hit him. With aether, there is no aberration either at the observer if he is at rest in aether while the source is moving, whereas there is with SR.

You're making up rules for aether (or a fabric of space) which don't apply to it any more than they apply to the Spacetime aether (or fabric). Any mechanism that throws a photon out eastwards from a stationary source would, if the source was moving north at any speed, automatically send that photon out some way to the north of eastwards such that it keeps pace northwards with the source and maintains the momentum of the system.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 23:29:12
If an image (light) only goes 0.53 back relative to 7.46 in distance looking behind you, somehow you believe the one way distance for light is the same as the two way distance for a light image. Now that would be magic.

If you want to project an image, you'll find that forward movement at 0.866c of the projector turns a forward-pointing lens into a stronger telephoto which means that even though the image has to go nearly seven and a half times as far to hit the screen it will display the image the same size as it would with the system at rest. Turn the projector round to point at the rear screen instead and the lens serves as a wide angle lens, again automatically correcting the size of the image. You can test that by working out where the lens is when the light catches it and drawing straight lines from the corners of the original image in the projector through the centre of the lens and on to where the screen will be when the light catches up with that, at which point you'll find the image size to be unchanged (even if you forget to deal with length contraction) - all speeds of travel of the system lead to the same size of image on the screen. Everything conspires to hide the real speed of travel of the system from all observers, and that's what makes the maths of relativity so fascinating.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 00:07:22
thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg467891#msg467891

I'm not sure exactly what the theory is, but if you accelerate a molecule by hitting just one of its atoms, you may well get a chain reaction with different atoms in the molecule taking turns to move and passing kinetic energy about between them. Over time, the movement of the atoms may settle down and become more constant joint movement of all the atoms, which means not all of the extra energy can have been passed on from one to the next each time. If there are only two atoms, the molecule would most likely just spin and keep spinning at a constant rate, but a more complex molecule could deform repeatedly as different atoms move more than others, and that might make it possible for some energy to be radiated off as infra-red light instead of being retained as extra kinetic energy in the molecule. Whatever the case though, I can't see any great role for light in what's going on (other than that all matter is arguably made up of light because that's essentially what it decays into).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 27/05/2017 02:39:43
If an image (light) only goes 0.53 back relative to 7.46 in distance looking behind you, somehow you believe the one way distance for light is the same as the two way distance for a light image. Now that would be magic.

If you want to project an image, you'll find that forward movement at 0.866c of the projector turns a forward-pointing lens into a stronger telephoto which means that even though the image has to go nearly seven and a half times as far to hit the screen it will display the image the same size as it would with the system at rest. Turn the projector round to point at the rear screen instead and the lens serves as a wide angle lens, again automatically correcting the size of the image. You can test that by working out where the lens is when the light catches it and drawing straight lines from the corners of the original image in the projector through the centre of the lens and on to where the screen will be when the light catches up with that, at which point you'll find the image size to be unchanged (even if you forget to deal with length contraction) - all speeds of travel of the system lead to the same size of image on the screen. Everything conspires to hide the real speed of travel of the system from all observers, and that's what makes the maths of relativity so fascinating.

We are discussing 3d shapes not a projected image. If the physical shape was one cell length in the front and the same physical object in the back one cell length there would be a different view of length with the observer in the middle when at relative rest. The physical object in back would appear to be 7.461 cell lengths long because the front of the image reaches you and the rear of the image takes 7.461 cell lengths to reach you with the constant speed of a ship at 0.866 c. Now the front image would reach you and the back of the physical object takes 0.53 cell lengths so it appears compressed length wise. Physically they are the same size at relative rest. These are your numbers we agreed on for travel distances for light. Light coming towards you from the back would reflect the image for 7.461 cell lengths for depth of view. From the front only 0.53 cell lengths are reflected.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 27/05/2017 14:00:36
Lets look at it another way. We have a ship in space 10 meters long with a reflective mirror in the front and back to reflect on both sides. This ship is going 0.866 c. There is a bulb in space stationary to the ship. The ship approaches the bulb. Light reaches the front mirror and bounces back to the observer at relative rest with the bulb. The ship moves forward ~4.6 meters and reflects light off of the back mirror. The returned length of light with just one photon would measure the ship as ~5.3 meters long.

Now the ship moving away from the bulb at rest compared to 0.866c. The light reaches the back mirror and co-moves forward with the ship. Light gains 0.133 for every length of the ship. So the light reaches the front mirror in 74.6 meters compared to the observer at rest. So the observer at rest would measure the ship moving away as ~74.6 meters long.

Now what would be the perpendicular view by the observer at rest?
For that we can use the Lorentz contraction and get 0.5 relative to rest. So the view is the hypotenuse between the two legs of a created right triangle for how light actually moves through space shortens the view by Half. We can never view true perpendicular only the angle from behind our position if we are the one in motion or forward of our position if we are at rest. Its the same view from either position.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 27/05/2017 15:52:29
Incidentally, the same phenomenon would occur between the two planes: because of aberration, an observer on one of the planes would see the other plane where it actually is, so if he would aim its laser directly at it, he would miss it.
No amount of repeating that can make it true. You are changing the momentum of the system.
I admit I didn't apply the conservation law yet to that idea, only logic and diagrams, so I'll try.

Quote
You are also making it impossible for a perpendicular laser to function if it's moving along at high speed because the light wouldn't be allowed to travel through it without hitting the side.
That's exactly what should happen to your perpendicular laser, only the light emitted by the atoms towards the future position of the mirrors should hit them, so contrary to what I thought, you seem to be right about its angle. :0) I already knew that light could not suffer aberration at reflection if a light clock was to work, so I could more readily apply it to the laser, and it will also help me to understand how light behaves between my two atoms. I guess our divergence was only a misunderstanding of mine then! Does that solve my momentum problem? Maybe you could add this specific explanation on what is happening into your laser to your MM page so that people like me would understand faster.

Quote
Quote from: Le Repteux
Your bullet would travel sideways through air because it would add the motion of the plane to its own motion, but sound doesn't, so the bullet wouldn't have to suffer aberration, and sound would.
The sound front would be angled, but it would still hit the hearer perpendicular in the frame in which the planes are at rest, so it is just like the bullet in that regard.
No need for rest frames with aether, we clearly see why it is so, but what a coincidence that light appears to follow the motion of bodies while it has no mass!

Quote from: David
Quote
Here is the link to the animation: ...
I gave up waiting for the adverts to disappear and for the actual gif to show any sign of existing.
Sorry! I have Adblock so I didn't know about the adverts. I tried to attach it but it doesn't work either. I guess we will have to wait for my fiftieth message then.

Quote from: David
Quote
With aether, whether the room is contracted or not, it seems to me that the light would travel less distance to reach the approaching wall than the one that is getting away from it, and if it is so, the approaching wall should absorb a more intense light than the other. Would it?
No, because the light send out backwards is weaker, having a longer wavelength, but when the wall hits it it runs into it fast enough to boost the perceived power back up to what it would be if the room was at rest. Likewise, the light going forward has a very high frequency, but when it hits the wall that's moving away from it, its power is not felt to be higher at all.
I was talking about the intensity of light, not its frequency. But you seem to mean that doppler effect would also take care of the intensity, so I'll try to figure out how.

Quote
The headlights effect is caused by conservation of momentum and it is not visible to people in the moving room with the light bulb. If light behaved the way you want it to, the rear wall would become brighter and the leading wall dimmer, so the people in the room could measure the room's speed of travel through space with a lightmeter. The Doppler effect aspect of this is also hidden from them, but an observer at rest who sees some of the light escaping through holes in the wall will see considerable shifts in its frequency.
The law of conservation of momentum is not a mechanism, and the way waves travel in a medium is, so if a wall is approaching the light source and the other is fleeing away, the approaching wall should still receive more light. Do you have a mechanism to provide or just a law?

Quote
Any mechanism that throws a photon out eastwards from a stationary source would, if the source was moving north at any speed, automatically send that photon out some way to the north of eastwards such that it keeps pace northwards with the source and maintains the momentum of the system.
If I understand well, the internal mechanism that produces photons would be influenced by the motion of atoms through aether, and the mechanism that produces water waves would not. Is that it?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 27/05/2017 16:46:00
Light waves are probably tornado and cyclone for entangled pairs. A trick used by light to make us consider super luminal speeds as possible. But the real speed limit is c. Spring type waves rather than pebble and water.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 18:40:26
We are discussing 3d shapes not a projected image.

Best not to use the word "image" then if you aren't talking about an image.

Quote
If the physical shape was one cell length in the front and the same physical object in the back one cell length there would be a different view of length with the observer in the middle when at relative rest. The physical object in back would appear to be 7.461 cell lengths long because the front of the image reaches you and the rear of the image takes 7.461 cell lengths to reach you with the constant speed of a ship at 0.866 c. Now the front image would reach you and the back of the physical object takes 0.53 cell lengths so it appears compressed length wise. Physically they are the same size at relative rest. These are your numbers we agreed on for travel distances for light. Light coming towards you from the back would reflect the image for 7.461 cell lengths for depth of view. From the front only 0.53 cell lengths are reflected.

No matter what speed the system's moving at, there will be no such visual distortions - it will always look as if there is no greater delay one way than the other and the difference in the distance light has to travel has no impact on how either end is seen from the other. The way a projector and lens works should act as a clue to that. The eye works exactly the same way - if you're looking forward, the lens acts more like a wide-angle lens (because the distance light has to travel from lens to retina is reduced) and if you're looking backward it acts like a telephoto (because the distance light has to travel from lens to retina is increased). The same thing happens with mirrors. If you have a light bulb in the middle of a moving room and you put a mirror to one side of it to reflect some of the light (that was going sideways) forwards, the curved wave front hits a moving mirror and makes the mirror interact with it as if the mirror was curved (concave), thereby projecting the light forwards in a less spread out form. If the same mirror's used to bounce the light to the rear instead, it acts as if it's curved the other way (convex), leading to the light spreading out more after it's been reflected. Everything automatically adjusts to hide the movement of the system through space from anyone co-moving with it.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/05/2017 18:55:34
Ok, before I start , you do realise that if the train travels down a  slope it makes it easier to measure the light?

No, I don't realise that, and your numbers don't appear to realise it either.

Now I have given the answer to the angle I provided without knowing the speed of the carriage, however I am sure with it being maths, I can get the results to fit a speed of the carriage.

How can you possibly calculate the angle without involving the speed of the carriage in the calculation?

Quote
However before we move on from the last assignment , you still avoided my question, I am still waiting for the proof of the physical contraction you claim exists.  I have not observed anything of the wow factor thus far, this is pretty basic stuff.

I've answered that many times before, but you clearly weren't ready to take it in. Remember the five points that I made in post #134:-

(A) A moving clock records fewer ticks than a stationary one in a given length of time, so it is not recording time, but is merely counting cycles. That is what all clocks do.

(B) A light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of movement therefore records fewer ticks than a stationary clock.

(C) An uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel (rather than perpendicular to it) will record fewer ticks than a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(D) A correctly length-contracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel will record the same number of ticks as a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(E) The null result of the MMX shows that the real universe length-contracts things in their direction of travel.

Once you have generated the right numbers for assignment 2, you'll be able to compare the two moving light clocks and see that the perpendicular one ticks more often than the other. The MMX shows that this is not how the universe works because real light clocks which move along together always tick at the same rate as each other regardless of their alignment. We also know that the slowing of real clocks matches up to the perpendicular clock's predicted behaviour and not to the predicted behaviour of uncontracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel.

Quote
p.s the answer to assignment 2 is a variate relative to the dimensions of the carriage.

Your perpendicular light clock should be the same length as the one used in assignment 1 so that you can easily compare the numbers you get from the two assignments. Your job here is to work out how far the train moves at 0.5c while the light travels from mirror A to the far mirror (B') and back to the first one again (A"), and you need to know how to calculate the angle that the light moves away from the perpendicular. I told you how the angle can be calculated and I was hoping that you'd let me know whether you understand that method or not. If you want to find your own method for doing it, that's fine, but for it to be valid it will need to generate the same numbers. We will be stuck here until you understand the method I've spelt out to you, so I'll go through it again with a new diagram.

We want to calculate the angle x. We have a right angled triangle, but the only side of that triangle with a known length is the vertical line B'A' which has a length of d [= 299,792,458m]. However, we do know the ratio of the lengths of AA' to AB' because we know the ratio of the speed of the train to the speed of light, and that ratio is 0.5:1.

The trig rule soh tells us that sine(x) = AA'/AB'. We don't yet know the lengths AA' or AB', but we do know their ratio, so we can simply use the numbers from that ratio: sine(x) = 0.5/1. Because we're dividing a number by 1, the result will be unchanged, so we now have sine(x) = 0.5. All we need to do now is use a calculator to find x by typing in a sequence such as 0.5 inv sin or shift sin 0.5 (depending on the order the calculator wants you to press the keys in.

Having done that and got the number 30 degrees from the calculator, we can now set about working out the actual lengths of the lines AA' and AB'. The only real length we know for the triangle is the vertical line A'B', but that's enough to do the rest now as we also have an angle to work with. All we need to do is apply more trig: tan(x) = AA'/A'B', and cosine(x) =  A'B'/AB'. We can rearrange those a little before we pick up the calculator (and note that I'm going to use an asterisk for the multiplication symbol to avoid confusion with the angle x): AA' =  tan(x) * A'B', and AB' = A'B'/cos(x). Now the calculator is used: AA' = 0.57735, and AB' = 1.1547. Note that I have used 1 as the length of A'B' because my length unit is d, and d = 299,792,458m. To fit with all your previous calculations, you should use 299792458 instead of 1 so that your answers come out in metres.

If you double 0.57735, you'll get 1.1547, so these answers fit with the 0.5:1 ratio that we expect them to. The lower mirror has moved from A to A" by the time the light returns to it from the top mirror, so the train has moved 1.1547d and the light has moved 2.3094d. To convert those to metres, again you'd need to multiply them by 299792458. One tick of this moving clock will take 2.3094t, and as my time unit is a second long, that's 2.3094s.

We now have three tick rates. The stationary clock ticks once every 2 seconds. The moving clock from assignment 1 ticks once for every 2 2/3 seconds of the stationary clock. The moving clock from assignment 2 ticks once for every 2.3094 seconds of the stationary clock.

Now, lets see how many pages of posts it takes you to get up to speed with that. On the up side though, it looks as if you might reach the finish line before GoC, which no one reading this thread at the start would ever have predicted.

I already understand what you are on about in intricate detail, I might not know the calculations but it is not as if I can't do them as proved in your first assignment.   However as the first assignment the second assignment is a rather ''pointless'' exercise...the biggest flaw being that light doe's not behave this way, especially in the zig zag scenario, quite provable by experiment.

Are you objective enough to realise why Einstein was wrong?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/05/2017 19:06:55

* laser.jpg (11.16 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4332 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 19:08:34
Lets look at it another way. We have a ship in space 10 meters long with a reflective mirror in the front and back to reflect on both sides. This ship is going 0.866 c. There is a bulb in space stationary to the ship. The ship approaches the bulb. Light reaches the front mirror and bounces back to the observer at relative rest with the bulb. The ship moves forward ~4.6 meters and reflects light off of the back mirror. The returned length of light with just one photon would measure the ship as ~5.3 meters long.

Is the bulb just putting out a single flash of light? If so, the observer with the flashbulb would see two flashes come back with a time gap between them of 2 times ~5.3 units of time (with one time unit being the time light takes to travel one metre). However, if your 10m length is the rest length, the actual length is 5m, so the time gap will only be ~5.3 units of time.

Quote
Now the ship moving away from the bulb at rest compared to 0.866c. The light reaches the back mirror and co-moves forward with the ship. Light gains 0.133 for every length of the ship. So the light reaches the front mirror in 74.6 meters compared to the observer at rest. So the observer at rest would measure the ship moving away as ~74.6 meters long.

Again it would be double that unless you apply length contraction.

Quote
Now what would be the perpendicular view by the observer at rest?

The observer at rest will see the ship appear to be highly contracted as it approaches and highly extended as it moves away. These contractions and extensions are not the length-contraction of relativity though and should never be confused with it. What the stationary observer should do is work out what the delays should be for the speed the ship is moving at and then correct for them to measure the correct length, at which point he will produce the answer that the ship is 5m long (assuming that it is 10m long when at rest).

Importantly though, if you give your stationary observer an identical 10m ship and have the original one send out flashes too, the observer on the moving ship will get the exact same timing delays between the returned flashes, and if he takes his own ship to be the one that's stationary, he will determine that the other ship must be 5m long.

Quote
For that we can use the Lorentz contraction and get 0.5 relative to rest. So the view is the hypotenuse between the two legs of a created right triangle for how light actually moves through space shortens the view by Half.

You're barking up the wrong tree when you drag the hypotenuse into this - if we use glass rather than mirrors, all the light involved in the experiment can be moving on a single straight line, just as if we're using a one-dimensional universe. There is no hypotenuse. Light does not travel on the hypotenuse when it goes fore and aft.

Quote
We can never view true perpendicular only the angle from behind our position if we are the one in motion or forward of our position if we are at rest. Its the same view from either position.

If you want to see the length contraction, you have to look from the side rather than from ahead or behind. If you view from ahead or behind, you see apparent contraction or extension due to communication delays which have nothing whatsoever to do with relativity's length-contraction. The observer must calculate the length by allowing for the expected visual distortions caused by relative movement. (A co-moving observer does not see any such distortions though and cannot detect the length-contraction at all, so it's vital that you don't mix up the two cases and try to have visual distortions in cases where they do not apply.)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 20:59:26
...but what a coincidence that light appears to follow the motion of bodies while it has no mass!

When it hits something and is absorbed, it adds to the mass of the object that absorbed it. Also, the entire object can decay and turn into massless electro-magnetic radiation, but conservation of momentum still applies to all that radiation and determines how the energy is spread.

Quote
I was talking about the intensity of light, not its frequency. But you seem to mean that doppler effect would also take care of the intensity, so I'll try to figure out how.

With light, the frequency is the intensity (unless you change the number of photons involved).

Quote
The law of conservation of momentum is not a mechanism,

Maybe so, but whatever the mechanism is, it must fit with the conservation of momentum. If you are on a moving boat and you punch the water beside it (downwards), what will be the shape of the wave produced? How much energy will be put into the forward-moving part of the wave and how much into the part moving astern? The mechanism for producing light waves will likely be similar to that (though there's a complication when we think of the wave as a collection of photons).

Quote
and the way waves travel in a medium is, so if a wall is approaching the light source and the other is fleeing away, the approaching wall should still receive more light. Do you have a mechanism to provide or just a law?

What I just described with punching water shows why more of the light will be thrown forwards and less backwards. (The analogy is not perfect though if you're in a boat that's moving faster than the speed of the waves produced by the punch, and waves on water also move at different speeds depending on their size.)

Quote
If I understand well, the internal mechanism that produces photons would be influenced by the motion of atoms through aether, and the mechanism that produces water waves would not. Is that it?

I don't see any great difference in principle. If you're on a stationary boat which is pointing east and you stick your hand in the water to push it out away from you, a wave will move off northwards (perpendicular to the boat). If you repeat this from a moving boat though with the boat still pointing east, your hand doesn't move directly northwards this time, but perhaps north east, even though you're still moving it perpendicular to the boat.

Let's do the same thing again using a long straight board to push the water so that we have a more singularly directed wave. We can have two people push the board, one holding each end, and they'll push when they're told to do so by clocks at their end of the board which are synchronised using signals that travel at the same speed as the water waves. When the boat is stationary, the whole board is pushed out sideways with both ends being moved simultaneously. When the boat's moving though, the clocks re-synchronise themselves for the new speed of movement (which is something they will do repeatedly as standard), and what happens this time is that the further aft end of the board gets pushed out first, followed later by the further forward one. This means that not only is the board not moving directly north when the boat's moving, but it's angled differently too, giving a stronger push than if the two ends moved simultaneously.

We don't know, or at least I don't, how electrons move around atoms, but we do know that they are responsible for emitting photons. If an electron is moving when it emits a photon, that will doubtless have some influence over which way the photon goes. The frequency of the light and its wave nature also suggests that something is oscillating while it's being produced, with faster oscillation leading to a shorter wavelength and more energy being carried by the photon, although it may well be more complicated that that, but nothing about it suggests that there should be any special mechanism involved that goes against all the ones we understand by detecting its movement through the medium in order to remove that motion or directionality from the thing that's being sent out.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 21:23:20
I already understand what you are on about in intricate detail, I might not know the calculations but it is not as if I can't do them as proved in your first assignment.   However as the first assignment the second assignment is a rather ''pointless'' exercise...the biggest flaw being that light doe's not behave this way, especially in the zig zag scenario, quite provable by experiment.

What's pointless about it? It predicts that a moving light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel should behave in a way that fits with the results of experiments with it's ticking rate reduced to the right degree. (Your position on this was that such a moving clock would tick at the same rate as a stationary one, and that doesn't fit with the results of experiment.) It also predicts that an uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel would tick slower than the perpendicular one, but experiment has not found any uncontracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel - what experiments show is that real light clocks are contracted when aligned that way.

Quote
Are you objective enough to realise why Einstein was wrong?

I realise what Einstein was right and wrong about. I don't think you do though.

And what's your latest diagram (post #178) supposed to show?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/05/2017 21:56:10
What's pointless about it? It predicts that a moving light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel should behave in a way that fits with the results of experiments with it's ticking rate reduced to the right degree. (Your position on this was that such a moving clock would tick at the same rate as a stationary one, and that doesn't fit with the results of experiment.)

Quite to the contrary, I predicted the clocks would ''tick'' at the same rates and they do as shown over several diagrams I have provided.  It is your understanding that is a failure.
I understand your error and have already explained it once in which you ignored.  I will continue with your misunderstanding and do the calculation when you have objectively understood this error.

The clock at rest measures 1.s whilst the light clock in motion as not yet measured 1.s.  When the light clock in motion measures 1 second, the clock at relative rest measures 1.3s.

How much time as passed by?

t1(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

t2(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

Showing how wrong you are.
* tt.jpg (10.35 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4356 times)

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

added- To put it simple for you, ''you'' are measuring the time by using light but measuring the light in the incorrect geometrical point giving you a false result.





Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 23:10:51
Quite to the contrary, I predicted the clocks would ''tick'' at the same rates and they do as shown over several diagrams I have provided.

Let me remind you. We have three tick rates. The stationary clock ticks once every 2 seconds. The moving clock from assignment 1 ticks once for every 2 2/3 seconds of the stationary clock. The moving clock from assignment 2 ticks once for every 2.3094 seconds of the stationary clock.

If you want to, you can built a clock to half the length so that it ticks once per second when stationary, and once every 1.1547 seconds when moving at 0.5c (or once every 1 1/3 seconds if uncontracted and aligned with the direction of travel rather that perpendicular to it), so those are the correct figures.

Quote
It is your understanding that is a failure.

What? My understanding fails because it fits the facts while yours doesn't?

Quote
I understand your error and have already explained it once in which you ignored.

You don't appear to understand anything, even after you've been dragged through the whole thing.

Quote
I will continue with your misunderstanding and do the calculation when you have objectively understood this error.

It won't do you any good if I move away from reason to believe something that doesn't fit the facts just so that I can be as wrong as you. You're the one that needs to shift.

Quote
The clock at rest measures 1.s whilst the light clock in motion as not yet measured 1.s.  When the light clock in motion measures 1 second, the clock at relative rest measures 1.3s.

Where do you get this 1.3 from? It should either be 1.1547 (the figure experiments give us) or 1 1/3 (which nature never gives us because of length-contraction).

Quote
]How much time as passed by?

t1(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

t2(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

Showing how wrong you are.[attachment id=0 msg=515314]

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

The pigeon is defecating on the chess board again and thinks it's won.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/05/2017 23:19:14
Quite to the contrary, I predicted the clocks would ''tick'' at the same rates and they do as shown over several diagrams I have provided.

Let me remind you. We have three tick rates. The stationary clock ticks once every 2 seconds. The moving clock from assignment 1 ticks once for every 2 2/3 seconds of the stationary clock. The moving clock from assignment 2 ticks once for every 2.3094 seconds of the stationary clock.

If you want to, you can built a clock to half the length so that it ticks once per second when stationary, and once every 1.1547 seconds when moving at 0.5c (or once every 1 1/3 seconds if uncontracted and aligned with the direction of travel rather that perpendicular to it), so those are the correct figures.

Quote
It is your understanding that is a failure.

What? My understanding fails because it fits the facts while yours doesn't?

Quote
I understand your error and have already explained it once in which you ignored.

You don't appear to understand anything, even after you've been dragged through the whole thing.

Quote
I will continue with your misunderstanding and do the calculation when you have objectively understood this error.

It won't do you any good if I move away from reason to believe something that doesn't fit the facts just so that I can be as wrong as you. You're the one that needs to shift.

Quote
The clock at rest measures 1.s whilst the light clock in motion as not yet measured 1.s.  When the light clock in motion measures 1 second, the clock at relative rest measures 1.3s.

Where do you get this 1.3 from? It should either be 1.1547 (the figure experiments give us) or 1 1/3 (which nature never gives us because of length-contraction).

How much time as passed by?

t1(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

t2(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

Showing how wrong you are.
* tt.jpg (10.35 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4356 times)

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

Quote
The pigeon is defecating on the chess board again and thinks it's won.

The pigeon is more like a lion that roars out the truth.   You quite clearly are not trying to understand. 

1.3 is an example, we do not have to use exact to show an example. But if you like I will use you time to show you again why you are wrong.

While  1.1547s has passed on the Earth clock only 1 second has passed on the dilated clock, however  1.1547s has passed by. The light in either clock has travelled  1.1547s worth of light distance.


added- To put it simple for you, ''you'' are measuring the time by using light but measuring the light in the incorrect geometrical point giving you a false result.

* d.jpg (8.53 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4329 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/05/2017 23:31:09
As yet you have offered nothing of a contraction or dilation, like I said earlier , all you are saying is light takes more time to travel more distance.
Yes you have to add contraction maths to retain synchronisation, however that's all it means and is nothing more than a mathematical correction to retain synchronous timing.  (take note time is always synchronous and passes by infinitely fast).

Δt=∞v

Where (t) is time and (v) is velocity

←v(t)=∞






Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/05/2017 23:55:53
Let us play a game, in the below diagram is a 0 which will vanish if the game is not worked out.

The game rules are simple , in 15 minutes of reading this post you lose if you have not worked out the game and froze time.   

In the below diagram you will observe a 0, once you have observed the 0 the timer activates and you are playing the game.

You now have 15 minutes to work out how to move the 0 without creating a past geometrical position, you can try to move the 0 at any speed you like.  However if you decide to do nothing, the 0 timer still ticks away creating a new chronological position in time at any speed you would like to define.

I assure you there is an answer to this, I wonder how many of you will admit it took you more than 15 minutes. (clue).
* 01.jpg (3.94 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4358 times)



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/05/2017 13:51:46
Let us play a game, in the below diagram is a 0 which will vanish if the game is not worked out.

The game rules are simple , in 15 minutes of reading this post you lose if you have not worked out the game and froze time.   

In the below diagram you will observe a 0, once you have observed the 0 the timer activates and you are playing the game.

You now have 15 minutes to work out how to move the 0 without creating a past geometrical position, you can try to move the 0 at any speed you like.  However if you decide to do nothing, the 0 timer still ticks away creating a new chronological position in time at any speed you would like to define.

I assure you there is an answer to this, I wonder how many of you will admit it took you more than 15 minutes. (clue).
* 01.jpg (3.94 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4358 times)




50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 28/05/2017 14:19:12
David

Here is your quote:
If you want to, you can built a clock to half the length so that it ticks once per second when stationary, and once every 1.1547 seconds when moving at 0.5c (or once every 1 1/3 seconds if uncontracted and aligned with the direction of travel rather that perpendicular to it), so those are the correct figures.

Do you understand where the contraction comes from in this case? The clock mirrors move through space 1/3 of the mirrors distance without the photon to reflect. Now since you are doing the two way you have to say only 0.1547 of the distance was without the photon. This is a visual contraction and a relative to space energy c for distance. The contraction is the amount of space not traveled by the photon. Your still in the rabbit hole believing the contraction is physical.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/05/2017 14:45:38
The contraction is the amount of space not traveled by the photon. Your still in the rabbit hole believing the contraction is physical.

Correct
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/05/2017 15:43:43
Let us play a game, in the below diagram is a 0 which will vanish if the game is not worked out.

The game rules are simple , in 15 minutes of reading this post you lose if you have not worked out the game and froze time.   

In the below diagram you will observe a 0, once you have observed the 0 the timer activates and you are playing the game.

You now have 15 minutes to work out how to move the 0 without creating a past geometrical position, you can try to move the 0 at any speed you like.  However if you decide to do nothing, the 0 timer still ticks away creating a new chronological position in time at any speed you would like to define.

I assure you there is an answer to this, I wonder how many of you will admit it took you more than 15 minutes. (clue).
* 01.jpg (3.94 kB . 421x458 - viewed 4358 times)




50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?

Anyone want the answer?  It looks like you are all struggling for the answer which is quite easy.

Clue 2 - I said you have to freeze time, I also give the option of the rate of time you wish to use, I also gave you 15 minutes.

Think about how long is 15 minutes if your rate  of time was infinitely slow.

Got it now?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 28/05/2017 15:50:24
David,

   The angle for light in the perpendicular position is 30 degrees from the direction of travel to meet the perpendicular clock. Light reaches the perpendicular clock in 1.1547 vs. 1 at relative rest. This is just basic 7th grade geometry using the Pythagoras theorem. We are measuring relative tick rates and do not require a physical contraction of length.

The sideways view created by vector velocity is also the contracted view. At half the speed of light the perpendicular view is from behind by 30 degrees which is a reduction of 13 4% of the actual size.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/05/2017 18:21:03
Quote from: David
I can't see any great role for light in what's going on (other than that all matter is arguably made up of light because that's essentially what it decays into)
Too bad you cant see the mechanism, but it's very simple: we walk like this when we walk sideways without crossing the legs, one foot approaching the other and stopping on the ground before it reaches it, the other foot getting away from the other and stopping on the ground too when it's long enough. What I figured is that if we would force such a system of particles to move, it would introduce doppler effect between the particles that would stay there as long as they would exchange light: blueshift from the approaching particle that would push the other away after a while, and redshift from the leaving one that would pull the other closer after a while. The steps between sources of light would then be the cause for motion, but there would also be resistance to acceleration, thus mass, since the first step caused by an external event would immediately produce doppler effect on the incoming light and would thus have to be introduced by force. With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass. It worked as long as I only considered doppler effect and aberration, but lately, I discovered that the step from the approaching particle couldn't have the same length than the one from the particle that was getting away since it should take less time for light to travel towards the closer particle than the inverse. I didn't get into the steps very deeply yet since this would need an interactive simulation that I'm unfortunately unable to make at the moment, but our discussion opened a new way for me to study the problem, and you can probably help because you're already used to play with that concept.

Let's imagine two particles one behind the other executing time shifted steps to the right, and let's assume that the steps from the left particle stop halfway from the second one before its light reaches that second one, which means that, from the viewpoint of that left particle, the right one is actually looking at rest at the distance it was when it emitted its light, and which also means that the mean speed of that left particle is half the speed of light. Notice though that the molecule as a whole has not traveled yet since only half of its particles have, so to complete the motion, the right particle has to make the same step the left one made. Once it would have, the molecule would have traveled one step while the light would have traveled back and forth between the particles, so that molecule would have only traveled at a c/4 while its atoms have to traveled at c/2, and this is without considering that a step is always going a lot faster at the middle of its course than at the ends. Notice that, if the frequency of the steps has to stay constant, and i think it has, then their length has to increase during an acceleration, which means that their middle speed could get to c way before their molecule would, what explains with a real mechanism at the micro scale the reason why the resistance to acceleration has to increase when speed gets close to c at our macro scale.

You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if  the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please? In other words, can you replace your two walls by my two particles, and your central bulb by considering the particles as sources of light. I tried but I still can't figure out how light could take the same time both ways, and I cant either compute what would happen after a while if we nevertheless ran a simulation with such a system: maybe it would self adjust after all, who knows? One more thing: in that model, the motion and mass of an isolated particle is justified by the much more frequent and smaller steps executed between its components.

ps. I think I found part of the answer below on my next message.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 18:31:25
How much time as passed by?

t1(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

t2(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

Showing how wrong you are.

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

Throwing a few wrong numbers at me and a pointless diagram won't get you anywhere, and the number 1.3s that you're using shows that your not using my measurement sytem - you're using your own one, and that's the one that's broken.

Quote
1.3 is an example, we do not have to use exact to show an example. But if you like I will use you time to show you again why you are wrong.

Just picking some random value to use as an example isn't an example of anything other than a random value, so how can it show anyone to be wrong? All it does is show that you can't even begin to construct an argument.

Quote
While  1.1547s has passed on the Earth clock only 1 second has passed on the dilated clock, however  1.1547s has passed by. The light in either clock has travelled  1.1547s worth of light distance.

That's better - that ties in with my position.

Quote
added- To put it simple for you, ''you'' are measuring the time by using light but measuring the light in the incorrect geometrical point giving you a false result.
[attachment id=0 msg=515324]

How am I wrong in what I say about what happens here when you're now agreeing with what I've said from the start? The stationary clock measures real time while the moving clock fails to measure so much time passing because of the increased distance light has to travel in it to complete each cycle.

As yet you have offered nothing of a contraction or dilation, like I said earlier , all you are saying is light takes more time to travel more distance.

You have just agreed that there's a dilation of time, although I personally don't like to call it that as it isn't time that's being affected in any way - it's simply clocks running slow and under-reading time as a result. The contraction only comes into it when looking at why co-moving light clocks aligned in different directions always stay in sync with each other instead of drifting out of sync in the way they would without length-contraction.

Quote
Yes you have to add contraction maths to retain synchronisation,

If you understand that, why did you say I've "offered nothing of a contraction"?

Quote
however that's all it means and is nothing more than a mathematical correction to retain synchronous timing.

If you don't accept that there's length-contraction, you remain at odds with the real universe and your theory no longer has any relevance. You can't handle relativistic mass being added to particles in particle accelerators and you can't handle the precision of their slowed rate of decay. It is nature that does length-contraction, and theories have to conform to that.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 18:43:34
50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?

97 views by the time I got to it, which is weird - all your images rack up lots of views quickly and often have dozens of views on them when they're newly posted. I assume that means you've posted them somewhere where lots of other people happen upon them, and it's sad to think how many man hours have been lost in this way when it's all added up.

I have no idea what your game is supposed to be about and no intention of wasting any time on it. The most obvious solution to the puzzle would be to block you as that would eliminate the entire past, present and future of the zero, the game, and the pigeon.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 18:54:07
Do you understand where the contraction comes from in this case? The clock mirrors move through space 1/3 of the mirrors distance without the photon to reflect.

Can you try to rephrase that in some way that might lead to it making a semblance of sense.

Quote
Now since you are doing the two way you have to say only 0.1547 of the distance was without the photon.

If your native language isn't English, please use your native language instead because it might be easier to make sense of. The mirror moved 1.1547 between the photon leaving it and returning to it while the photon went twice as far. How does that turn into 0.1547 of the distance "without the photon"?

Quote
This is a visual contraction and a relative to space energy c for distance. The contraction is the amount of space not traveled by the photon. Your still in the rabbit hole believing the contraction is physical.

The contraction is from 1.3333333333... to 1.1547 and that contraction is necessary to account for how the photon reaches the front mirror without going faster than c. You are just retreating into voodoo.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 19:06:27
The angle for light in the perpendicular position is 30 degrees from the direction of travel to meet the perpendicular clock. Light reaches the perpendicular clock in 1.1547 vs. 1 at relative rest. This is just basic 7th grade geometry using the Pythagoras theorem. We are measuring relative tick rates and do not require a physical contraction of length.

Of course you don't need a contraction of length for the perpendicular clock. How many times do you have to be told that? The contraction applies to the other clock aligned with its direction of travel such that the light has to chase a lead mirror which is racing away from it. No amount of telling me that the perpendicular clock doesn't need contraction will change the fact that the non-perpendicular clock needs contraction. Are you never going to take that on board?

Quote
The sideways view created by vector velocity is also the contracted view. At half the speed of light the perpendicular view is from behind by 30 degrees which is a reduction of 13 4% of the actual size.

The perpendicular view of the moving object remains the perpendicular view and is not changed by the speed of the object being viewed. The length contraction acting on the object will show up when looking in perpendicular to the path of the object. The 30 degree angle does represent the angle which an observer moving with the clock will think is perpendicular to its (and his) path, but that has no impact on the stationary observer. You are still severely muddled in your thinking, misapplying ideas which you only half understand.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/05/2017 19:16:00
Quote
I was talking about the intensity of light, not its frequency. But you seem to mean that doppler effect would also take care of the intensity, so I'll try to figure out how.
With light, the frequency is the intensity (unless you change the number of photons involved).
With photons, the intensity depends on the number of photons per square cm, so if the left wall hits the light sooner than the right one, there will automatically be more photons per square cm on that left wall.

Quote from: David
Quote
The law of conservation of momentum is not a mechanism,
Maybe so, but whatever the mechanism is, it must fit with the conservation of momentum. If you are on a moving boat and you punch the water beside it (downwards), what will be the shape of the wave produced? How much energy will be put into the forward-moving part of the wave and how much into the part moving astern? The mechanism for producing light waves will likely be similar to that (though there's a complication when we think of the wave as a collection of photons).
I guess that the bow wave will be higher than the stern one while their frequency will be the same.

Quote from: David
Quote
and the way waves travel in a medium is, so if a wall is approaching the light source and the other is fleeing away, the approaching wall should still receive more light. Do you have a mechanism to provide or just a law?
What I just described with punching water shows why more of the light will be thrown forwards and less backwards. (The analogy is not perfect though if you're in a boat that's moving faster than the speed of the waves produced by the punch, and waves on water also move at different speeds depending on their size.)
OK! I understand that the approaching wall would receive more photons per square cm, but that each of them would be less intense since they come from the stern part of the source. Is that what you meant? If so, I think we should be able to apply it to the steps, but I still have a problem to imagine how. A less intense photon should induce a less intense step, but I can't figure out what a less intense step would mean since all the steps have to travel the same distance. Maybe we should differentiate between the beginning and the end of the steps: maybe a step could be faster at the beginning and slower at the end, or slower at the beginning and faster at the end. I can't imagine further away than that for now though, I have to let it sink a bit.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/05/2017 20:31:07
50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?

97 views by the time I got to it, which is weird - all your images rack up lots of views quickly and often have dozens of views on them when they're newly posted. I assume that means you've posted them somewhere where lots of other people happen upon them, and it's sad to think how many man hours have been lost in this way when it's all added up.

I have no idea what your game is supposed to be about and no intention of wasting any time on it. The most obvious solution to the puzzle would be to block you as that would eliminate the entire past, present and future of the zero, the game, and the pigeon.

Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.
Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary. 

If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.

It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/05/2017 21:18:55
Quote from: The Box
It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.
Different ideas than ours automatically produce subconscious resistance to them, which transforms in bad feelings at the conscious level, which lead to bad interpretation of what is said, so we must take care not to take our feelings for granted when discussing ideas, but I admit I don't always do what I know I should in this case. :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 21:38:51
Too bad you cant see the mechanism, but it's very simple: we walk like this when we walk sideways without crossing the legs, one foot approaching the other and stopping on the ground before it reaches it, the other foot getting away from the other and stopping on the ground too when it's long enough.

That may well be how things really move if there's a minimum distance which can't be further subdivided. It would mean that everything moves in tiny jumps which would always occur at the same speed (possibly instantaneous), while what we normally think of as speed would then be how long things stay in one place between moves rather than how quickly they make the jumps.

Quote
What I figured is that if we would force such a system of particles to move, it would introduce doppler effect between the particles that would stay there as long as they would exchange light: blueshift from the approaching particle that would push the other away after a while, and redshift from the leaving one that would pull the other closer after a while. The steps between sources of light would then be the cause for motion, but there would also be resistance to acceleration, thus mass, since the first step caused by an external event would immediately produce doppler effect on the incoming light and would thus have to be introduced by force.

What do you mean by light? Are you perhaps thinking more in terms of force-carriers rather than light? If not, wouldn't your particles be giving out light all the time in all directions and losing most of it, thereby depleting themselves as they effectively decay into nothing more than radiation in a very short time?

Quote
With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass.

If there is a minimum separation distance in the space fabric and particles move in jumps between positions, they would need to be alternating between moving in jumps and being at rest, so that bit makes sense. There is also no movement energy in a stationary object, and hence no "light". If movement energy is the "light", then there would need to be more of it present the faster the object moves.

Quote
It worked as long as I only considered doppler effect and aberration, but lately, I discovered that the step from the approaching particle couldn't have the same length than the one from the particle that was getting away since it should take less time for light to travel towards the closer particle than the inverse. I didn't get into the steps very deeply yet since this would need an interactive simulation that I'm unfortunately unable to make at the moment, but our discussion opened a new way for me to study the problem, and you can probably help because you're already used to play with that concept.

The difference in the times taken shouldn't matter - your "light" can't be spreading out as it would be lost if it didn't hit the other particle every time, so it must get there sooner or later regardless. The thing that's bothering me most though is how the energy would be transferred between the two particles, because if the rear particle stops when it sends "light" forwards, the "light" can hit the front particle to set it moving, but then when the "light" leaves the front particle to go back to the rear one it will speed up the front particle when it sets out and will then accelerate the rear particle in the opposite direction when it gets there unless you have some way of giving the returning "light" negative energy. If such "light" with negative energy exists, then you could attract things towards you by shining it at them (which is quite different from normal light which would always push them away).

Quote
Let's imagine two particles one behind the other executing time shifted steps to the right, and let's assume that the steps from the left particle stop halfway from the second one before its light reaches that second one, which means that, from the viewpoint of that left particle, the right one is actually looking at rest at the distance it was when it emitted its light, and which also means that the mean speed of that left particle is half the speed of light. Notice though that the molecule as a whole has not traveled yet since only half of its particles have, so to complete the motion, the right particle has to make the same step the left one made. Once it would have, the molecule would have traveled one step while the light would have traveled back and forth between the particles, so that molecule would have only traveled at a c/4 while its atoms have to traveled at c/2, and this is without considering that a step is always going a lot faster at the middle of its course than at the ends. Notice that, if the frequency of the steps has to stay constant, and i think it has, then their length has to increase during an acceleration, which means that their middle speed could get to c way before their molecule would, what explains with a real mechanism at the micro scale the reason why the resistance to acceleration has to increase when speed gets close to c at our macro scale.

I'm getting a hint of an idea as to what you're hoping to achieve with this, but it seems to me that the frequency of the steps would need to increase for the object to move faster, because without that happening, it looks as if the maximum speed of the object would be limited to half c.

Quote
You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if  the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please?

Not the Doppler effect, but the headlights effect, but neither are terribly relevant because your "light" can't be allowed to miss the target, so you actually need a mechanism to ensure that it always goes to the right place and to ensure that force is then applied in the right direction.

Quote
In other words, can you replace your two walls by my two particles, and your central bulb by considering the particles as sources of light. I tried but I still can't figure out how light could take the same time both ways, and I cant either compute what would happen after a while if we nevertheless ran a simulation with such a system: maybe it would self adjust after all, who knows?

You don't have a bulb half way in between the particles radiating off energy, and your particles can't afford to miss any of the "light" either or energy would be lost from moving object all the time until it stops moving. I think you need to explore how much energy needs to be transferred, which direction it's being transferred in and which way it will move the thing that receives it. After that, you can try to work out how that energy is transferred, but I can't see it being done with anything that deserves to be described as light.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 21:56:44
]With photons, the intensity depends on the number of photons per square cm, so if the left wall hits the light sooner than the right one, there will automatically be more photons per square cm on that left wall.

No, all that happens is that the frequency changes such that each photon is more energetic. If you run into them fast enough they can become X-rays or gamma rays (although in the case of the room moving at ridiculously high speed, they would be released backward from the bulb as radio waves and then received by the wall as light).

Quote
I guess that the bow wave will be higher than the stern one while their frequency will be the same.

I'm not sure what would happen to the frequency as the wave height difference results in different speeds for the waves, but with light the speeds are always c and the frequency has to adjust instead. More of the energy is sent forwards than backwards too, but the same amount is sent out in opposite directions relative to the moving thing that introduced all the new energy there.

Quote
OK! I understand that the approaching wall would receive more photons per square cm, but that each of them would be less intense since they come from the stern part of the source. Is that what you meant?

The approaching wall receives the same amount of photons as if the room was stationary, and the same amount of photons as the front wall - they merely travel with lower energy by having a longer wavelength and lower frequency.

Quote
If so, I think we should be able to apply it to the steps, but I still have a problem to imagine how. A less intense photon should induce a less intense step, but I can't figure out what a less intense step would mean since all the steps have to travel the same distance. Maybe we should differentiate between the beginning and the end of the steps: maybe a step could be faster at the beginning and slower at the end, or slower at the beginning and faster at the end. I can't imagine further away than that for now though, I have to let it sink a bit.

Your first problem there is getting your "light" to transfer negative energy.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 22:13:06
Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.

You have comprehensively lost the argument over and over again, but you are just like the pigeon - you don't understand all the stuff that goes right over your head, so you continue to strut about and coo. I very much doubt you've ever beaten anyone down in your life - they simply get bored with you when they realise you can't learn and they stop talking to you. The only reason I've put up with you longer than any of the others is that one of my main areas of study is moronics - I'm interested in how AGI is going to communicate with people who think like pigeons and the degree to which it may be able to help them make progress in improving their ability to think rationally.

Quote
Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary.

There comes a point beyond which there is nothing left to learn about a pigeon.

Quote
If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.

No I don't remember that - all I can remember is you denying that there is any contraction.

Quote
It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.

All the evidence to the contrary is written through the previous four pages of this thread for all to see.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/05/2017 23:20:58
Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.

You have comprehensively lost the argument over and over again, but you are just like the pigeon - you don't understand all the stuff that goes right over your head, so you continue to strut about and coo. I very much doubt you've ever beaten anyone down in your life - they simply get bored with you when they realise you can't learn and they stop talking to you. The only reason I've put up with you longer than any of the others is that one of my main areas of study is moronics - I'm interested in how AGI is going to communicate with people who think like pigeons and the degree to which it may be able to help them make progress in improving their ability to think rationally.

Quote
Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary.

There comes a point beyond which there is nothing left to learn about a pigeon.

Quote
If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.

No I don't remember that - all I can remember is you denying that there is any contraction.

Quote
It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.

All the evidence to the contrary is written through the previous four pages of this thread for all to see.
What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.   You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.
You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong. I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality. I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 30/05/2017 17:30:14
What do you mean by light? Are you perhaps thinking more in terms of force-carriers rather than light? If not, wouldn't your particles be giving out light all the time in all directions and losing most of it, thereby depleting themselves as they effectively decay into nothing more than radiation in a very short time?
I take light as an information carrier that helps bonded sources of light to stay synchronized. In my example with two sources aligned with the direction of motion, they use doppler effect to stay synchronized, but if they would rotate around one another or if they would not be aligned with the motion, they would also have to use aberration.

Quote
The thing that's bothering me most though is how the energy would be transferred between the two particles, because if the rear particle stops when it sends "light" forwards, the "light" can hit the front particle to set it moving, but then when the "light" leaves the front particle to go back to the rear one it will speed up the front particle when it sets out and will then accelerate the rear particle in the opposite direction when it gets there unless you have some way of giving the returning "light" negative energy. If such "light" with negative energy exists, then you could attract things towards you by shining it at them (which is quite different from normal light which would always push them away).
The energy comes from doppler effect: for two bonded particles, the bonding energy observed by the particles has to stay constant, so if we force one of them to move while it takes time for that information to reach the other one, it produces blueshift on the bonding energy emitted towards the other particle, which moves away from it to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, which produces redshift on the bonding energy emitted backwards to the other particle, which moves towards it after a while to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, ...and so on as long as they stay bonded. As you can see, there is no need for negative bonding energy to pull on the rear particle, just redshift.

Quote from: David
Quote
With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass....
If there is a minimum separation distance in the space fabric and particles move in jumps between positions, they would need to be alternating between moving in jumps and being at rest, so that bit makes sense. There is also no movement energy in a stationary object, and hence no "light". If movement energy is the "light", then there would need to be more of it present the faster the object moves.
The faster the object moves, the more doppler effect gets important between the atoms' steps, and the longer the steps get. A short and fast acceleration would produce the same final doppler effect as a long and slower one for instance, so that at the end, the steps would have the same length. More speed at our scale also means more doppler effect and more distance traveled in the same time, whatever the time it took for that acceleration to produce that speed.

Quote
I'm getting a hint of an idea as to what you're hoping to achieve with this, but it seems to me that the frequency of the steps would need to increase for the object to move faster, because without that happening, it looks as if the maximum speed of the object would be limited to half c.
Sorry, I made a mistake, light doesn't have to travel both ways for two steps to be executed since it is emitted during the time a step is executed. Let's imagine that a step emits one photon that starts to be emitted at the beginning of the step and stops being emitted at the end of the same step: one step, one photon. Once a step half the length of the photon, thus half the distance between the particles, would be completed, the photon would be contracted to half its length by doppler effect, which means that, at that moment, it would stand exactly between the two particle, so it would only have to travel half the distance between the particles to produce the step from the other particle if that particle didn't move away during that time, but since the particle starts to move away with the front part of the photon, the rear part of the photon will have to travel twice the length of the step to complete it, so the whole photon will only have traveled during two steps at the end of the process, but since it is contracted during the motion of the first step, and stretched back during the motion of the second step, I think it will finally have traveled at c and the molecule at half c, which is what we should expect since we can draw the steps on the paper one by one and imagine the information taking time between them. Not easy to imagine though, it would be easier to figure out with a simulation.

P.S. I tried to imagine the atoms of the MM interferometer moving by time shifted steps, and I realized that if the steps were half the length of the photon, the distance between the atoms should contract in the same proportion for light to travel the same distance between them than between the mirrors. Coincidence?

Quote from: Andrex
Quote
You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if  the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please?
Not the Doppler effect, but the headlights effect, but neither are terribly relevant because your "light" can't be allowed to miss the target, so you actually need a mechanism to ensure that it always goes to the right place and to ensure that force is then applied in the right direction.
When we look at a star, we see a point, and if that point was moving towards us, the doppler effect would be more important for us that for another observer not inline with the motion. If we had to move away to stay on sync with the light, we would have to move away faster than the other observer. If the other observer had to move away, he would have to move sideways to the motion of the star and slower than the star, thus the star would overtake him after a while and once it would be getting away from him, he would have to circle the star to stay on sync with its light. That's what should happen between two atoms trying to stay on sync, except that aberration would help them orbit around one another if the acceleration of the first atom would not be made directly towards the second one.

Now for the loss of light during the process if that light is emitted in all directions at a time, we have to consider that it would form a standing wave, and that it would only be perceived by an observer standing on the constructive interference fringes of that standing wave. There would almost be no light to observe if we were in line with the two atoms for instance, and for two atoms half a wave away from one another, there would only be one constructive fringe, and it would leave the system at 90 degree to the motion, so if we would put four atoms from four other similar molecules at the same half wave away on the four sides of the central molecule, they would absorb most of the light by interference and stay bonded with that central molecule by the same standing wave process. The steps would also produce a particular effect on the fringes since the approaching one produces blueshift on its emitted light and the leaving one redshift, but I didn't get that far in my analysis yet. Maybe it would only coincide with the steps from the atoms of the other molecule since both molecules have to move on sync if they are side by side, so this way, the steps inside a molecule would not be executed at the same time, and the steps executed by paired atoms from two molecules traveling side by side, or by two atoms traveling one behind the other, would. It seems to work on paper, but if it would ever work like that for real, it would be fascinating. What still makes me think it could is that the steps explain mass and motion of all the sources of light in a very straightforward way, whereas the Higgs only explains the mass of other particles without even explaining its own one.

Quote
You don't have a bulb half way in between the particles radiating off energy, and your particles can't afford to miss any of the "light" either or energy would be lost from moving object all the time until it stops moving. I think you need to explore how much energy needs to be transferred, which direction it's being transferred in and which way it will move the thing that receives it. After that, you can try to work out how that energy is transferred, but I can't see it being done with anything that deserves to be described as light.
Bonded atoms do not emit light either, and they should since that bond is considered to be due to moving electrons. We also consider that electrons do not radiate when they stay on the same orbital, but there is no mechanical explanation for the phenomenon either. At least with the steps, we have a mechanical phenomenon to help us analyze the problem of motion at the atom's scale.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 30/05/2017 21:26:05
What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.

What loss? You throw figures at me that aren't mine and tell me they're wrong - yes, they're wrong because they're your figures and not mine.

Quote
You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.

I worked it out for myself and only then read up on it. You may have attempted to do the same, but you got your maths wrong and became emotionally attached to your incorrect beliefs, and no amount of reasoning or taking you through the numbers can shift you from your wrong position because you are mentally incapable of accepting that you're wrong - as soon as you realise that you've been pinned down on some point where you're wrong, you backtrack to get out of there and turn back into a troll.

Quote
You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong.

Who are this "we"? Everyone who's reading this thread other than you is fully aware that you are the least gifted person on this forum.

Quote
I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

Countless in the sense that you mean zero times. Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

Quote
I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality.

...says someone who can't accept the result of MMX and denies the science. You want the universe to conform to your broken model, and when it fails to do so, you tell everyone who has a model that fits the real universe that they are playing parlour tricks.

Quote
I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.

I have put a lot of time into trying to help you, but it is a thankless task. Fortunately though you've given me everything I wanted from the conversation and that is good information both about how your mind works and about how it doesn't - you're not stupid, but you simply refuse to let your mind work properly because your existing beliefs are too important to you to accept the possibility that they're wrong, and that overrides reason every single time, exactly as happens with religious people. The same fault is also involved in political beliefs where many people are incapable of shifting position no matter how much they are shown to be wrong. There is evidence elsewhere on this forum of me being wrong about things, then recognising that and changing position instead of digging in to defend a wrong position, and it didn't take pages of posts to bring about that change. There is evidence of someone else in this thread quickly changing position on something when he realised he was wrong about something. There is no such evidence of you doing that because you can't accept that you're wrong when you're shown to be wrong. You accuse me of arrogance, but I have backed up everything I've said here by showing you numbers that fit the facts and back my claims. You have failed to do likewise, but throw broken numbers about instead, and you accuse me of producing broken numbers which have nothing to do with me but are merely numbers that you have plucked out of the air. You're slapdash and shoddy, and you tell lies about what happened here. It would be a shocking display if it didn't already fit in with everyone's expectations of you. And as for ignorance, the word is not better suited to anyone than you, because you don't just not know things, but you actively specialise in ignoring the facts. In this thread you have put on a shameful display, but it is only one of hundreds of such displays which you have defecated across this and other forums. From your point of view though you're right about wasting your time talking to me, because you have gained nothing from this at all, just as you gain nothing from talking to anyone else here. You will never gain anything here because you are fixed in your beliefs and no amount of reasoning or showing you that your maths is wrong will ever change that. You are just an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/05/2017 21:43:57
What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.

What loss? You throw figures at me that aren't mine and tell me they're wrong - yes, they're wrong because they're your figures and not mine.

Quote
You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.

I worked it out for myself and only then read up on it. You may have attempted to do the same, but you got your maths wrong and became emotionally attached to your incorrect beliefs, and no amount of reasoning or taking you through the numbers can shift you from your wrong position because you are mentally incapable of accepting that you're wrong - as soon as you realise that you've been pinned down on some point where you're wrong, you backtrack to get out of there and turn back into a troll.

Quote
You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong.

Who are this "we"? Everyone who's reading this thread other than you is fully aware that you are the least gifted person on this forum.

Quote
I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

Countless in the sense that you mean zero times. Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

Quote
I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality.

...says someone who can't accept the result of MMX and denies the science. You want the universe to conform to your broken model, and when it fails to do so, you tell everyone who has a model that fits the real universe that they are playing parlour tricks.

Quote
I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.

I have put a lot of time into trying to help you, but it is a thankless task. Fortunately though you've given me everything I wanted from the conversation and that is good information both about how your mind works and about how it doesn't - you're not stupid, but you simply refuse to let your mind work properly because your existing beliefs are too important to you to accept the possibility that they're wrong, and that overrides reason every single time, exactly as happens with religious people. The same fault is also involved in political beliefs where many people are incapable of shifting position no matter how much they are shown to be wrong. There is evidence elsewhere on this forum of me being wrong about things, then recognising that and changing position instead of digging in to defend a wrong position, and it didn't take pages of posts to bring about that change. There is evidence of someone else in this thread quickly changing position on something when he realised he was wrong about something. There is no such evidence of you doing that because you can't accept that you're wrong when you're shown to be wrong. You accuse me of arrogance, but I have backed up everything I've said here by showing you numbers that fit the facts and back my claims. You have failed to do likewise, but throw broken numbers about instead, and you accuse me of producing broken numbers which have nothing to do with me but are merely numbers that you have plucked out of the air. You're slapdash and shoddy, and you tell lies about what happened here. It would be a shocking display if it didn't already fit in with everyone's expectations of you. And as for ignorance, the word is not better suited to anyone than you, because you don't just not know things, but you actively specialise in ignoring the facts. In this thread you have put on a shameful display, but it is only one of hundreds of such displays which you have defecated across this and other forums. From your point of view though you're right about wasting your time talking to me, because you have gained nothing from this at all, just as you gain nothing from talking to anyone else here. You will never gain anything here because you are fixed in your beliefs and no amount of reasoning or showing you that your maths is wrong will ever change that. You are just an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.
What is interesting is that I do not have beliefs , I only have reality.

Quote
Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

Added - by your own answer to  which I already know, you are agreeing there is no length contraction or time dilation or synchronisation offset.   If you are as clever as you presume, then you should ''see'' why you are wrong and why the constant speed of light shows you are wrong.






Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 30/05/2017 22:34:45
David,

   Sorry to beat an old horse but to half the speed of light direction with vector velocity and perpendicular to vector velocity tick at the same rate without physical contraction. Follow my thought process and graph it in your mind. Or if you cannot try using graphing paper. Start at a point on the graphing paper and count out 10 squares up and across. Now from the beginning point draw a line 60 degrees forward than 60 degrees back down. Repeat the process again. Now the 60 degrees is what the perpendicular follow. up and down see where it lands. Now go two lengths of the mirror forward and then back 2/3rds of a mirrors length. There was a third of the length the clock mirror in the back moved without the horizontal photon. The 60 degree angles hit directly in the center of that 1/3 not traveled by the horizontal photon. Work it out on a graph paper. You will see the equal distances the photons take. This creates = tick rates in either direction. No physical contraction only visual. After half the speed of light not sure yet and I have not worked it out. Could be after half the speed of light direction of motion could matter with a light clock.

There is an important issue here that perpendicular maintains continuity with space while vector velocity does not in the direction of motion.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 31/05/2017 16:25:26
David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:

A star and an observer at X are both moving to the left in aether at the same speed and in the same direction. The star emits a photon at observer X while he is inline with the earth which at rest in aether further away. Using your laser principle, the photon should follow the red trajectory on the left to hit observer X while the laser would be pointing at its former position, and to hit the earth, we would need another laser pointing behind the earth and where the photon would travel directly to the earth. I would have saved ten years if the scientific forums that I frequented on the net had used that laser principle to explain the way light moves in a light clock! It works if it travels in aether, but it also works if it travels in SR's specific space, so why did Einstein reject the aether then? Only because he needed his space/time concept for gravitation?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 31/05/2017 20:37:00
I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors, which respects the postulate about the speed of light, and the inertial frame principle. It wouldn't mean that the photons would have a rest mass though, only sufficient mass to add the motion of bodies to their own motion. They would still suffer doppler effect and aberration, but they wouldn't need curved space to be attracted by the sun. I think only one experiment wouldn't give the right data, and it is the Sagnac one, but I think it doesn't fit with SR either.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 31/05/2017 21:03:51
Quote
Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

That is not pointing to an example.

Quote
The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

You haven't given me a speed for the moving one to travel at. If I assume you want to use to the 0.5c figure that we used before, then light travels the full length of the stationary clock in half a second. You also haven't told me which end of the light clock the light's setting out from and which direction the light clock's moving in, but either way, it's not going to be at either end of it at the end of half a second, so you're neither on a tick nor even a half tick, so what use are you hoping to make of the numbers you'd get from this?

Quote
Added - by your own answer to  which I already know, you are agreeing there is no length contraction or time dilation or synchronisation offset.

If I was to do calculations based on the length not contracting, there would automatically be no contraction involved, but the result would not match up to the real universe. You appear to be claiming that I'd agree that the clocks would not go out of sync though, and that's a misrepresentation of my position.

Quote
If you are as clever as you presume, then you should ''see'' why you are wrong and why the constant speed of light shows you are wrong.

You're the one who's making the errors, and you keep misrepresenting my position in order to claim that I'm wrong. We went through the maths of this and you appeared to agree with the 2 2/3 figure for the un-contracted length clock aligned with its direction of travel - all the numbers in square brackets were filled in with your values and they were fully compatible with mine. That 2 2/3 figure was the cycle time in seconds for that light clock moving at 0.5c and was compared with a stationary light clock on which each cycle took 2 seconds. That 2 2/3 figure is incompatible with the real universe because real light clocks contract when they are moving in the direction in which they're aligned (and at other angles too - all except for perpendicular). You are arguing against the null results from MMX and in doing so you are objecting to the way nature works and demanding that it change its ways.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2017 23:08:58
Quote
Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

That is not pointing to an example.

Quote
The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

Quote
You haven't given me a speed for the moving one to travel at. If I assume you want to use to the 0.5c figure that we used before, then light travels the full length of the stationary clock in half a second. You also haven't told me which end of the light clock the light's setting out from and which direction the light clock's moving in, but either way, it's not going to be at either end of it at the end of half a second, so you're neither on a tick nor even a half tick, so what use are you hoping to make of the numbers you'd get from this?


The speed nor direction really matters, but in the aim to get you to understand I will add  a speed and we will use 0.5c, I will also add a vector which is cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif.  From the rear to the front of the carriage.

I am not disagreeing your clocks would not tick at different rates because your scenario is designed to show that and that is what would happen.
However you are quite clearly misinterpreting the information in which I do not blame you for, your education learnt you this to be so.


Quote
We went through the maths of this and you appeared to agree with the 2 2/3 figure for the un-contracted length clock aligned with its direction of travel - all the numbers in square brackets were filled in with your values and they were fully compatible with mine

Yes they were the correct results, however you still do not recognise there is no contraction,

Tell me if you think the below is wrong.

The clock at relative rest measures 1 tick which is equal to 1 second

The clock in motion as not yet registered a tick.

However the light travelling in either clock as travelled an equal distance because the speed is constant of the light.

All you are saying to me is that light takes longer to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance.  There is nothing else you have said in all that you said.  That is all it means so why do you think it means something else? t
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 31/05/2017 23:19:38
The energy comes from doppler effect: for two bonded particles, the bonding energy observed by the particles has to stay constant, so if we force one of them to move while it takes time for that information to reach the other one, it produces blueshift on the bonding energy emitted towards the other particle, which moves away from it to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, which produces redshift on the bonding energy emitted backwards to the other particle, which moves towards it after a while to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, ...and so on as long as they stay bonded. As you can see, there is no need for negative bonding energy to pull on the rear particle, just redshift.

This sounds like redshift and blueshift on your bonding energy rather than on light, so why do you need the light at all? If light's being transferred, it's going to push whatever receives it, and if it's redshifted it will merely push less strongly, but it would still be a push. Would it not be better just to think in terms of force carriers? Most importantly though, how is the energy being transferred, or where is it coming from and going to if it isn't being exchanged between the two particles?

Quote
...Not easy to imagine though, it would be easier to figure out with a simulation.

I tried to run your description through my head several times, both yesterday and today, and just couldn't do it. You need a series of diagrams and a description of each giving a cause-and-effect explanation of where the energy's going.

Quote from: Anthrax
When we look at a star, we see a point, and if that point was moving towards us, the doppler effect would be more important for us that for another observer not inline with the motion. If we had to move away to stay on sync with the light, we would have to move away faster than the other observer. If the other observer had to move away, he would have to move sideways to the motion of the star and slower than the star, thus the star would overtake him after a while and once it would be getting away from him, he would have to circle the star to stay on sync with its light.

You don't have a star with your particles though - they can't be putting out light continually with most of it disappearing off into space and taking away energy with it.

Quote
Now for the loss of light during the process if that light is emitted in all directions at a time, we have to consider that it would form a standing wave, and that it would only be perceived by an observer standing on the constructive interference fringes of that standing wave.

Is it possible to set up a standing wave all round a particle or pair of particles using light without energy leaking away?

Quote
There would almost be no light to observe if we were in line with the two atoms for instance, and for two atoms half a wave away from one another, there would only be one constructive fringe, and it would leave the system at 90 degree to the motion, so if we would put four atoms from four other similar molecules at the same half wave away on the four sides of the central molecule, they would absorb most of the light by interference and stay bonded with that central molecule by the same standing wave process.

If you only have an O2 molecule sitting in space, you don't have any other atoms there to absorb light that goes out sideways, so is light going to leak away until the molecule runs out of energy and can't function any more? This is quickly getting into areas which I've never explored though, so you're discussing it with the wrong person. I have put very little thought into how particles interact.

Quote
What still makes me think it could is that the steps explain mass and motion of all the sources of light in a very straightforward way, whereas the Higgs only explains the mass of other particles without even explaining its own one.

At the moment, my mind just goes blank when I try to go into this stuff - it's an area which I don't normally think about to any depth, but you're also adding an extra complexity to it by having things take turns to move in little jumps and with the result that molecules shouldn't be able to move faster than 0.5c unless individual particles can move faster than c when they're doing their jumps.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2017 23:34:56
at rest cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif=1.s
e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=1.s

in motion cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif=1.s
e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=1.s

in motion cd1148bb751fe0b966f726dca900189f.gif=0.666666s

bdb984a032403bb667e131371151f409.gif=1.333333s


Understand that and you may understand, you are changing the parameters of cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif giving (a) and (b) new values .



* real.jpg (42.49 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 4910 times)


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 00:22:00
David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:

Are you also unable to attach image files directly? I can't find any way of making the image appear at that site.

Quote
A star and an observer at X are both moving to the left in aether at the same speed and in the same direction. The star emits a photon at observer X while he is inline with the earth which at rest in aether further away. Using your laser principle, the photon should follow the red trajectory on the left to hit observer X while the laser would be pointing at its former position, and to hit the earth, we would need another laser pointing behind the earth and where the photon would travel directly to the earth.

You haven't described where the lasers are, but if the observer at X points a laser at the star at S, his laser light will hit the star at S' and light from the star which was aimed at point X will reach the observer when he has reached X' (instead of going to X). To hit the earth with a laser, the observer would indeed have to point his laser some way further behind, though this is directly equivalent to thinking that the Earth is moving (while he and the star are stationary) and he has to aim ahead of it on its path if he's to hit it.

Quote
I would have saved ten years if the scientific forums that I frequented on the net had used that laser principle to explain the way light moves in a light clock! It works if it travels in aether, but it also works if it travels in SR's specific space, so why did Einstein reject the aether then? Only because he needed his space/time concept for gravitation?

Einstein actually accepted that there must be an aether of some kind, but he didn't mention it in his theories. What happened was that some aether theories were disproved and it became "established wisdom" that the aether had been disproved as a result, and Einstein's mob failed to point out that this was not the case because it suited them to have their main rival pushed aside and ignored, so they left claims in place that the aether had been proved not to exist (and I have a copy of a university physics textbook from recent times which makes that exact claim), just as they leave claims in place that the one-way speed of light can be pinned down even though every single experiment they've attempted to measure it with has been debunked.

I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,

It doesn't work that way because the speed of the object moving along the arm aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus would be different in different directions relative to the mirrors - when moving one way it would have more of its movement energy stored as relativistic mass instead of kinetic energy than when it's moving the other way. For example, if the apparatus is moving at 0.866c and the objects are moving along the arms at 0.866c relative to the apparatus (as measured from the frame of reference in which the apparatus is stationary), the actual speeds of travel of the object will be 0.99c in one direction and 0 in the other. We're actually moving towards a mechanical clock with this idea - we could use chains going round sprockets and have a bit sticking out of the chain at one point which would ring a bell every time it hits it, sounding out seconds. It would hit the bell, move along the arm, go round a sprocket, come back the other way, go round the other sprocket, and hit the bell again. The chain would length-contract to different extents on the out and back legs but with an overall contraction which would bring the sprockets closer together (and the sprockets would also become elliptical) - the overall contraction would also match the contraction on the non-moving struts holding the sprockets apart with no stresses being imposed on them that wouldn't also be there with the apparatus at rest.

[Edited to change 99c into 0.99c]
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 01/06/2017 11:10:50
David,

You were correct and I was wrong. Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.
1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 01/06/2017 11:57:43
David,

   Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position? In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2017 13:37:23
David,

   Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position? In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?
The clock does not contract, the distance changes the light has to travel. Nothing more than that.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2017 13:39:29
David,

You were correct and I was wrong. Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.
1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.
1.  NO it is mental
2.true
3.no
4.no idea what you on about


When the clocks tick at different rates it means nothing, the light in either clock still travels the same distance in the same amount of time.  While 1 clock read 1 second and 1 clock reads say 1.1 second, the light has travelled an equal distance in both clocks, except  the 1 second clock has not yet measured the second tick of the light that has already travelled from 1 second to 1.1 second.

Put another way, when the slower clock strikes 1.1s, the rest clock also measures 1.1s but you see it has 1.s not accounting for that time does not stop why the in motion clock light as not completed its cycle.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 17:42:48
Start at a point on the graphing paper and count out 10 squares up and across... No physical contraction only visual.

I was going to respond to this last night, but the forum kept becoming unavailable. Since then, you seem to have made a shift in position, so let me know if there's anything relating to this bit that you still want me to work through.

Quote
After half the speed of light not sure yet and I have not worked it out. Could be after half the speed of light direction of motion could matter with a light clock.

There's no difference around the 0.5c speed - the same rules apply at all speeds.

Quote
There is an important issue here that perpendicular maintains continuity with space while vector velocity does not in the direction of motion.

I'm not clear as to what that means.

Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.

1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.

3 has been tested by space probes going out to other planets with their clocks ticking at the predicted rates, showing no changes of the kind that would happen if they were shifting between different aether bubbles tied to different planets. 2 has been tested by the MMX. I don't know what you mean by 4 because it sounds like the MMX covers it again. We really are only left with 1, unless someone comes up with a viable 5 (and if anyone has found a good 5, I'd love to see it). It isn't likely to happen though, because 1 is already very sound, not just backed by MMX, but by particle accelerators where they can measure the speed of particles moving at close to the speed of light and measure the amount of relativistic mass they're carrying - that extra mass automatically leads to any object moving at 0.866c which attempts to accelerate to 0.866c relative to that starting speed only reaching .099c instead of 1.732c, and that in itself shows why length contraction must occur - it turns a circular orbit into an elliptical one and squashes the ellipse more and more as the system moves faster through space. If you apply that to all things, it ties in perfectly with length-contraction of the arm(s) in the MMX.

Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position?

If you read the text below my interactive MMX diagrams, you'll find a bit about the angle of the mirror - a moving mirror acts as if it's tilted at a different angle from the one it's physically set at, and even a single photon doesn't bounce off a single point, but is spread out, so a part that hits the mirror lower down will hit the mirror when the mirror's in a different place than when another part of the photon hits the mirror higher up. The extraordinary thing about the maths of relativity is that everything auto-corrects to make it impossible to pin down a preferred frame.

Quote
In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?

The vertical path is not shortened at all, and I can't see why you think the change in mirror angle would make that path shorter.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/06/2017 17:46:25
David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:
Are you also unable to attach image files directly? I can't find any way of making the image appear at that site.
I can't attach files either, the admin told me that I was half way from a senior status, so it will take a while. How about downloading adblock at getadblock.com ? It's free and very efficient. I disconnected from hostpics, and I still got the image instantly, so maybe you will. But you got my explanations right anyway. :0)

Quote
I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,
It doesn't work that way because the speed of the object moving along the arm aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus would be different in different directions relative to the mirrors - when moving one way it would have more of its movement energy stored as relativistic mass instead of kinetic energy than when it's moving the other way.
Maybe mass increase, thus added resistance to acceleration due to speed, would affect clocks traveling at relativistic speeds, but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors. Moreover, since the acceleration of the ball would always be perpendicular to the motion, I think it would not suffer mass increase in this direction, so the speed of the system would not affect the speed of the ball in this direction. I suggested this mind experiment to analyze the way light would travel if it had mass, so I think we should not use time dilation or length contraction or mass increase as a way to test it, instead, we should only run it and see if it would need those phenomenon to work properly. For instance, if we give mass to light and it doesn't slow down moving light clocks, we cannot assume that relativistic effects would nevertheless affect the energy of particles, because that energy would also travel like massive particles.

As I said though, a massive light doesn't seem to explain the sagnac effect, so it might be a futile exercise, but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive, so I thought it would be useful to compare them. My atoms' steps mean that some kind of light might be at the origin of motion and mass, so photons may not carry mass the way massive ones do, but they certainly could appear to do so. On the other hand, if the way particles travel in aether depends on the information they exchange between them, then it is normal that they follow the direction given by that information, and to me, only doppler effect and aberration can help them to do so, so if a massive particle follows a straight line between two reflectors whatever the speed of the system, it should be due to doppler effect and aberration at the particles' level.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 18:15:48
I am not disagreeing your clocks would not tick at different rates because your scenario is designed to show that and that is what would happen.
However you are quite clearly misinterpreting the information in which I do not blame you for, your education learnt you this to be so.

Do you understand that light clocks are clocks and that all clocks slow down like light clocks because even if they're clockwork things with cogs and springs they operate using forces which travel at the speed of light and have increasingly lengthened communication distances for these forces as the clocks move faster through space? There is no clock that doesn't slow like a light clock. With a mechanical watch, it's possible to build it more or less on a single plane such that length-contraction has little impact on it if it's aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel through space, but if it's aligned edge on to its direction of travel it has to be length-contracted as much as a light clock in order to keep it ticking at the same rate as the perpendicular clock. Time never slows, but clocks do, and clocks are slowed the same amount regardless of how they are aligned, which wouldn't happen without length-contraction acting on them.

Quote
The clock at relative rest measures 1 tick which is equal to 1 second

The clock in motion as not yet registered a tick.

However the light travelling in either clock as travelled an equal distance because the speed is constant of the light.

Yes - the light has gone the same distance through space, but we have a stationary clock ticking at the fastest rate that it can tick at (without jiggling it, which would be cheating), and we have two moving clocks which tick at a slower rate. The moving MMX is in effect exactly such a pair of moving clocks, and they both tick at the same rate as each other, going directly against the predictions for a universe without length-contraction where they would usually be found to tick at different rates.

Quote
All you are saying to me is that light takes longer to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance.  There is nothing else you have said in all that you said.  That is all it means so why do you think it means something else?

Do you still not understand that moving clocks tick at a slower rate than identical ones which are stationary? Do you still not understand that all clocks are slowed in this way? Do you still not understand that almost everything that has any functionality to it is a clock and its functionality will be slowed down by its speed of movement through space (creating the illusion that time is slowed down while in reality it is merely functionality that is slowed)?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2017 18:43:30

Do you still not understand that moving clocks tick at a slower rate than identical ones which are stationary? Do you still not understand that all clocks are slowed in this way? Do you still not understand that almost everything that has any functionality to it is a clock and its functionality will be slowed down by its speed of movement through space (creating the illusion that time is slowed down while in reality it is merely functionality that is slowed)?
HUH?  I know time never slows down, I also know the clocks tick at different frequencies, you do not seem to be understanding anything.

There is no contraction of space, there is no contraction of the carriage, there is no contraction of the light,there is no time dilation ,  if you think there is , then you must be quite ''crazy''.

What you fail to grasp is that nothing is slowed. 


Quote
Yes - the light has gone the same distance through space,

Yes the light is simultaneous in timing and in both clocks the light travels the same distance, it is your numbers that are incorrect.

What you are calling 1 second of the tick in motion is actually 1.1s and your numbers are wrong timed by the clock at rest.
In short you would not need the clock in motion because the clock at rest is the clock that is measuring time accurately.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 18:52:20
...but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors.

Not so - the ball would be carrying more relativistic mass when going in one direction and less when going the other way, so you have to take that into account when working out its speed. That's for a ball bouncing back and forth in the same direction as the apparatus is moving in. If it's moving on the perpendicular path instead, it's actual direction of travel is forwards of that at some angle, and the increase in relativistic mass from the forward component of its motion will also slow the perpendicular component of its motion. If, for example, the ball is moving at 0.5c on the perpendicular path and we then accelerate the apparatus from stationary to 0.5c, the actual speed of the ball will not be 0.707c, but a lower value which I don't currently know how to calculate - the extra mass will slow the perpendicular movement, but I don't know how much extra mass there will be because I don't know what the total speed will be, so I can't work out how much the perpendicular movement will slow, and therefore can't work out what the total speed will be. I could work it out in reverse though by working out the time the ball would have to take to reach the mirror, and that would give me the actual speed of the ball, at which point I could work out the relativistic mass it's carrying and calculate how much that extra mass would slow the perpendicular movement, and then that slowing should match up with the actual speed reduction of the perpendicular component. I'll maybe have a go at doing that later (if no one else is keen to give it a go first).

Quote
...but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive,

It isn't the same. The speed of light through the space fabric is always c, but as soon as you have mass tied up in something, its speed through the space fabric can vary, which is why a particle orbiting a black hole at 0.866c while the black hole is moving along at 0.866c will vary in speed between 0 and 0.99c through the fabric of space, whereas light going round in a circle at the event horizon of a black hole will move at c through the fabric of space throughout (ignoring the slowing caused by its depth in the gravity well).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 19:04:36
HUH?  I know time never slows down, I also know the clocks tick at different frequencies, you do not seem to be understanding anything.

There is no contraction of space, there is no contraction of the carriage, there is no contraction of the light,there is no time dilation ,  if you think there is , then you must be quite ''crazy''.

What you fail to grasp is that nothing is slowed.

The ticking of the clocks is slowed. The functionality of the clocks is slowed. You agree that the clocks tick at different frequencies, so why can't you see that that's a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

Quote
Yes the light is simultaneous in timing and in both clocks the light travels the same distance, it is your numbers that are incorrect.

You agreed with the numbers - you completed assignment 1 and your figures were 100% compatible with mine.

Quote
What you are calling 1 second of the tick in motion is actually 1.1s and your numbers are wrong timed by the clock at rest.

Assuming a speed of travel of 0.5c, what the moving clock asserts is a second is judged to be 1.1547s by the stationary clock. You are trying to claim that the moving clock will tick slow and somehow know that it's ticking slow, so it will correct for the slowing and shout "tick" before the light has completed a cycle, but clocks don't behave like that - they always shout "tick" on the completion of cycles.

Quote
In short you would not need the clock in motion because the clock at rest is the clock that is measuring time accurately.

How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2017 21:17:00
You are trying to claim that the moving clock will tick slow and somehow know that it's ticking slow,

You are close to understanding, the clock does not know it is ticking slowly , but we know it is ticking slower. We also know the reason it is ticking slowly, because the light is travelling a greater distance.

Quote
a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

In English ?  what as that even suppose to mean.

Quote
How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?

Because we are discussing relative motion and not absolute motion.

This is what you are doing, you are taking a constant length cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif, then for no reason changing the constant length but still keeping it cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif.
If you actually did it without the ''parlour trick'' and put the new constant lengths appropriately, cd1148bb751fe0b966f726dca900189f.gif  and bdb984a032403bb667e131371151f409.gif, then having the parameters correct, there is no problem or contraction, just explanation that light takes different amount of times to travel different lengths. Which is very simple and obvious.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/06/2017 21:55:11
...but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors.
Not so - the ball would be carrying more relativistic mass when going in one direction and less when going the other way, so you have to take that into account when working out its speed.
Mass only affects resistance to acceleration, so when the ball would be bouncing forward, it would take more energy to accelerate it, but since the reflector would be more massive too, I think it should have the same speed with regard to the reflector than the one it had before hitting it. If we exchange a ball while the earth is traveling through aether, the ball always keeps the same speed with regard to us whatever our position on the earth, so it doesn't keep the same speed with regard to aether, and light does. One thing is sure, it actually takes the same time for a ball to travel forward than backward between two reflectors on earth whatever its speed through aether, and it shouldn't be so for light.

Quote from: David
Quote
...but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive,
It isn't the same. The speed of light through the space fabric is always c, but as soon as you have mass tied up in something, its speed through the space fabric can vary, which is why a particle orbiting a black hole at 0.866c while the black hole is moving along at 0.866c will vary in speed between 0 and 0.99c through the fabric of space, whereas light going round in a circle at the event horizon of a black hole will move at c through the fabric of space throughout (ignoring the slowing caused by its depth in the gravity well).
What I meant is that a massive particle sent perpendicularly to the direction of the moving laser would hit the mirrors, and that a photon sent at an angle to the same direction by an atom of the laser would hit them too. In fact, if we could see the photon, we would see it getting away from the laser at lower speed than the speed of light, and if we didn't see the particle, we could imagine that it is traveling through aether at high speed.

I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future? 

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 22:41:43
Mass only affects resistance to acceleration, so when the ball would be bouncing forward, it would take more energy to accelerate it, but since the reflector would be more massive too, I think it should have the same speed with regard to the reflector than the one it had before hitting it.

If you start with a ball bouncing back and forth between two mirrors/walls on a path perpendicular to the direction the apparatus is going to move in, when you start moving the apparatus, the ball will be left behind, so we have to get the apparatus moving first and then set the ball moving afterwards. If we do that, how hard are we going to push the ball? If the apparatus is moving at 0.866c, for example, all our actions will be running at half speed just as our clocks are slowed, so we push the ball at a speed we think is the same one we gave it when the apparatus was at rest, but we're actually only pushing it up to half that speed. That means the perpendicular component of its speed will be half of what we believe it to be and it will take twice as long to complete the trip. That gives us a different way to work out the speed than the way I outlined last time - you simply multiply the perpendicular component of its speed in a stationary apparatus by the time-dilation factor applying to a moving apparatus).

Quote
One thing is sure, it actually takes the same time for a ball to travel forward than backward between two reflectors on earth whatever its speed through aether, and it shouldn't be so for light.

One thing is sure, and that's that your sure thing isn't the case.

Quote
In fact, if we could see the photon, we would see it getting away from the laser at lower speed than the speed of light...

Relative to the laser, yes.

Quote
I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future?

The rocket has clocks which all record two years' worth of ticks, and the Earth has clocks which all record four years' worth of ticks in the same length of time. The twin in the rocket has been around for just as long as the twin on the Earth, but has spent four years running in slow motion and has aged two years less due to slowed functionality; all of that slowing being caused by doubled communication distances between atoms/etc. and within atoms. The idea of shortcuts into the future doesn't actually add up in any Spacetime model, either because it introduces contradictions or because it still needs a Newtonian time to be added to the model if it is to function rationally, at which point the shortcuts are seen as fake, merely being things running in slow motion against Newtonian time while covering a reduced distance through a superfluous time dimension.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 23:04:28
You are close to understanding, the clock does not know it is ticking slowly , but we know it is ticking slower. We also know the reason it is ticking slowly, because the light is travelling a greater distance.

We would know that if we could tell that we were stationary, but it's more awkward than that. We're on a planet that's moving round a star that's moving round in a galaxy that's moving through the universe. We can't identify a stationary frame of reference, so we don't have a clock that we know to be stationary which all other clocks could be compared with.

Quote
Quote
a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

In English ?  what as that even suppose to mean.

It means exactly what it says. A clock is a device that counts cycles, and to have cycles it needs to have moving parts. In a light clock, the moving parts are light pulses. In a mechanical watch, the moving parts are things like cogs and springs. If the functionality is slowed, it means the cycles take longer to complete. A clockwork car will also move more slowly if its functionality is slowed, so it too behaves like a clock. A person will also walk more slowly and think more slowly when moving because his/her functionality is also slowed.

Quote
Quote
How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?

Because we are discussing relative motion and not absolute motion.

We're discussing both, but one of them depends on knowledge that we have no access to.

Quote
This is what you are doing, you are taking a constant length cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif, then for no reason changing the constant length but still keeping it cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif.
If you actually did it without the ''parlour trick'' and put the new constant lengths appropriately, cd1148bb751fe0b966f726dca900189f.gif  and bdb984a032403bb667e131371151f409.gif, then having the parameters correct, there is no problem or contraction, just explanation that light takes different amount of times to travel different lengths. Which is very simple and obvious.

What makes you think I'm using ab and ba for the moving system? If I was starting with the leftward journey of the photon on a light clock which is moving to the right, the first measurement wouldn't be ca, but ba', and the second measurement wouldn't be ad, but a'b''' (the number of dashes after that last b not being an exact value and varying depending on the speed involved - all I'm trying to indicate with this is that aa' is a shorter distance than half bb''').
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/06/2017 13:46:11


What makes you think I'm using ab and ba for the moving system? If I was starting with the leftward journey of the photon on a light clock which is moving to the right, the first measurement wouldn't be ca, but ba', and the second measurement wouldn't be ad, but a'b''' (the number of dashes after that last b not being an exact value and varying depending on the speed involved - all I'm trying to indicate with this is that aa' is a shorter distance than half bb''').
I think you are using cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif because that is the obvious system to use, and admit tingly by yourself you are making this error.
You are changing the (a) constant and (b) constant so the results you get are expected and there is nothing odd about it.

As yet you have still not shown any contraction, in fact you have not shown really anything that actually means anything of importance. You have shown light takes more time to travel more distance and less time to travel less distance, then you want to try and make more out of it, although there is nothing more to it.


Now if you want to say there is a distance contraction of the space the light has to travel or an expansion of the distance of space the light has to travel, that would be acceptable fact.
The carriage itself does not contract, the space itself does not contract, the light does not contract, the distance changes and that is all there is too it.

Quote
a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

Yes, a moving clocks functionality is being slowed, but the problem is it means absolutely nothing apart from your clock is not a constant and can not measure constant time accurately.

Time passes by at an infinite speed , it is not measurable  accurately.

t=←∞

You can realise this if you try to move away from 0.  Please try to move ''forward'' at any speed without leaving an immediate past.

0→

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/06/2017 14:09:53
Realise this, while you are focusing on the events unfolding inside the carriage , outside the carriage the light is always being synchronous through a distance of space.


* train.jpg (45.75 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 4190 times)





Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/06/2017 14:13:24
Then when you finally get this straight in your mind and removed your confusion, we can go onto some real science and discuss volume expansion and contraction by the affects of thermodynamics and motion.

I assure you if you travelled to the sun, your molecules will expand isotropic.  I assure you when it is cold you shrink.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/06/2017 14:17:37
An object in relative  motion will isotropic contract because it loses the time share entropy scheme of a rest body if at relative rest.
I am talking real physical contractions here, not myths.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/06/2017 17:27:32
Box,

You appear, at times, to agree that there are three different tick rates for the clocks: the stationary clock ticks more quickly than the two moving ones, and the perpendicular moving clock ticks more quickly than the non-perpendicular one. You agreed with the numbers for this when you completed assignment 1.

Perhaps it will help to add a fourth clock so that we have two stationary clocks aligned perpendicular to each other. Those two clocks tick at the same rate as each other.

Now look at the other pair of clocks that are moving - they are not ticking at the same rate as each other because their movement through space slows the ticking on one of them more than the other.

If we bring our moving pair of clocks to a halt so that they are stationary too, they will then tick at the same rate as each other. We should be able to use a pair of clocks like this to detect our movement through space, and that's what the MMX was intended to do, but it produced a null result even though it was guaranteed to be moving at high speed through space during some part of its orbit round the sun. That is the big problem for you, because the MMX would not produce a null result all the time if you were right - it might do so at one part of the Earth's orbit if the Earth happens to be stationary at that point, but six months later it will be moving at 60km/s.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 02/06/2017 18:33:14
Quote from: David
Quote
I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future?
The rocket has clocks which all record two years' worth of ticks, and the Earth has clocks which all record four years' worth of ticks in the same length of time. The twin in the rocket has been around for just as long as the twin on the Earth, but has spent four years running in slow motion and has aged two years less due to slowed functionality; all of that slowing being caused by doubled communication distances between atoms/etc. and within atoms. The idea of shortcuts into the future doesn't actually add up in any Spacetime model, either because it introduces contradictions or because it still needs a Newtonian time to be added to the model if it is to function rationally, at which point the shortcuts are seen as fake, merely being things running in slow motion against Newtonian time while covering a reduced distance through a superfluous time dimension.
Then why do you say that «Clocks are slowed by movement, but more importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all»? If you mean that clocks would not slow down for all observers at rest in aether, maybe you should say it this way, because since I did not believe that time could really slow down, I understood that time would not really slow down even for clocks in motion. I still have a doubt though, because I can't figure out how a light clock could register less tics while moving through aether. We can attribute the time dilation phenomenon to the atoms, but if a light clock can't measure it, how could the atoms do? You said that the walls of your moving box would get the same quantity of energy, so how would the atoms be able to measure a difference at their scale? We can't measure the speed of light one way, so how would the atoms be able to do so? With no difference in the speed of the information to measure, no difference in the frequency of light, and no difference in its intensity, it seems to me that a moving light clock, or two moving atoms exchanging energy, would have nothing more to register than if they were at rest.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/06/2017 21:18:27
Then why do you say that «Clocks are slowed by movement, but more importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all»?

Because some people get the idea into their heads that time is slowing down for a moving object, but all that's actually slowing for them is their functionality due to increased communication distances for things like light and forces. Time continues to pass at the same rate as for a stationary object. The problem is that many people have difficulty understanding what time is, and Einstein messed badly with their minds. I want to untangle the mess for them by showing them that time relates to how fast light moves through the space fabric and that it passes at the same rate for stationary objects as for moving ones, not always matching up to the amount of time that a clock measures as passing. With SR where there is no absolute frame of reference, a clock will supposedly always tick at the rate that time is passing and not at a slower rate, and the claim is that the speed of light across the clock is always the same in all directions.

Quote
I still have a doubt though, because I can't figure out how a light clock could register less tics while moving through aether.

But you've seen in the interactive MMX diagrams that the stationary apparatus completes a "tick" in half the time taken for the one moving at 0.866c, so how can moving clocks fail to count up fewer ticks? The only problem we have is that we can't pin down which clocks are stationary because every clock appears to behave in such a way that it could be stationary with all clocks moving relative to it appearing to be the ones that are running slow. No clock can detect that it is running slow, and there's no observer in the universe who can point to a clock that he can prove is not running slow.

Quote
We can attribute the time dilation phenomenon to the atoms, but if a light clock can't measure it, how could the atoms do?

They can't measure it - nothing in the universe can.

Quote
You said that the walls of your moving box would get the same quantity of energy, so how would the atoms be able to measure a difference at their scale? We can't measure the speed of light one way, so how would the atoms be able to do so?

Why do you think the atoms would need to do so? They don't do anything different from light clocks and there is no way for them to detect whether they're moving or not.

Quote
With no difference in the speed of the information to measure, no difference in the frequency of light, and no difference in its intensity, it seems to me that a moving light clock or two moving atoms exchanging energy would have nothing more to register than if they were at rest.

Indeed - the exchange seems identical to them, but it isn't and it happens more slowly.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/06/2017 22:04:30
Box,

You appear, at times, to agree that there are three different tick rates for the clocks: the stationary clock ticks more quickly than the two moving ones, and the perpendicular moving clock ticks more quickly than the non-perpendicular one. You agreed with the numbers for this when you completed assignment 1.


Yes I have agreed your clocks tick at different speeds but you seem to miss the point that this does not mean anything other than it takes light  more time to travel more distance or less time to travel less distance.  Why do you keep insisting it means something else?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 03/06/2017 13:26:54
Because the measurement of time would be meaningless if orientation mattered for tick rate.
Observations suggest tick rate is the same in all orientations.
Math has to follow a theory to be correct but a theory that follows math does not have to be correct.
Either the physical clock has to contract or space has to lengthen to fit the math to the observation.
We do have an observation that space Aether lengthens in the wavelength produced with increased velocity.
This follows the equivalence principle.

In GR Aether space energy has to expand to allow Black holes to form. Energy keeps atoms apart until the expansion become greater than the speed of light as gravity. We might have the same issue equivalence with Doppler affect on space expansion. If light has to travel further for the same distance the effect would be the same as physical contraction while still following relativity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/06/2017 14:19:05
A quick break down of thread so far for those who do not understand.   Science is arguing that a train carriage shrinks in length when in motion. (contracts),

I am arguing that the cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif length constant of the train carriage remains constant in any position of travel. Science claims this contraction but has no explanation or physical example of a contraction, they are making it up.

What they do explain is a contraction and expansion of the length of space between cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif.  However this is not a physical contraction of the space itself or the light or the carriage.   it is a distance decrease and increase, no more , no less.


added- This is what we are discussing


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/06/2017 14:33:19
Because the measurement of time would be meaningless if orientation mattered for tick rate.
Observations suggest tick rate is the same in all orientations.
Math has to follow a theory to be correct but a theory that follows math does not have to be correct.
Either the physical clock has to contract or space has to lengthen to fit the math to the observation.
We do have an observation that space Aether lengthens in the wavelength produced with increased velocity.
This follows the equivalence principle.

In GR Aether space energy has to expand to allow Black holes to form. Energy keeps atoms apart until the expansion become greater than the speed of light as gravity. We might have the same issue equivalence with Doppler affect on space expansion. If light has to travel further for the same distance the effect would be the same as physical contraction while still following relativity.
Tick rate is the same with no direction.  Any measurement after 0 becomes immediate history even standing ''still''.

The speed of time is   ←∞ for all observers.  Our brain information update of observation is updated immediately by travelling information packets. There is no space between receiving information packets that enters your eyes. The live feed is continuous and without breaks or pauses. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/06/2017 15:39:53
Quote from: David
The problem is that many people have difficulty understanding what time is, and Einstein messed badly with their minds.
To me, time is related to constant frequencies. If there wouldn't be constant frequencies to observe, or if frequencies would vary too rapidly, we couldn't measure time. I also think time exists because phenomenon rely on timing to exist: it is so for small my steps for example.

Quote from: David
Indeed - the exchange seems identical to them, but it isn't and it happens more slowly.
Time is related to frequencies, not to the time it takes for those frequencies to reach an observer. I can't figure out how the frequency of a light clock could dilate just because it took more time for light to reach the mirrors. Your simulation with the laser helped me to understand the beaming and the contraction effect, you wouldn't have one to explain the time dilation by chance? If the tics of a light clock would depend on the frequency of light, there couldn't be less tics each second since that second would actually be made of those tics, and if we assume that the phenomenon would come from the light exchanged between the particles of that clock, we are caught in the same circular trap but at a smaller scale. It might take more time for a sole pulse of light to travel between two moving mirrors, but we must send them continuously and at constant frequency to be able to register the tics, and the frequency of those tics would be the same whatever the speed since there would never be any doppler effect. If we can't run a simulation out of an idea that is simple enough to get simulated, then I think this idea has good chances to be wrong.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/06/2017 23:45:12
Yes I have agreed your clocks tick at different speeds but you seem to miss the point that this does not mean anything other than it takes light  more time to travel more distance or less time to travel less distance.  Why do you keep insisting it means something else?

Look at my interactive MMX diagrams again and study them properly - it's all there and has been from the start, so I don't know why you don't just trust your eyes. The horizontal and vertical paths on the stationary MMX on the left are directly equivalent to a pair of light clocks ticking in sync with each other (a tick being the time it takes for the pulse of light to go from the angled mirror to the ends of the arms and back), and the horizontal and vertical paths on the moving apparatus on the right show you that they don't tick in sync with each other unless the horizontal arm is length-contracted (as in the second version of the diagram). The version with length-contraction shows what happens with the MMX in the real universe, while the first version shows what would happen without length-contraction, and that wouldn't produce a null result.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 04/06/2017 00:08:29
Time is related to frequencies, not to the time it takes for those frequencies to reach an observer. I can't figure out how the frequency of a light clock could dilate just because it took more time for light to reach the mirrors.

The laser light should technically be of a lower frequency on my moving MMX diagrams than it is on the stationary ones because that light's produced by a slowed mechanism in the laser - with the apparatus moving at 0.866c, the frequency will be halved, so what's shown as a pulse of red light on the moving apparatus should be somewhere into the infra-red. The detector will also have its mechanism slowed though, so it will still detect the light as being the usual frequency, just as the laser thinks it's putting out the usual frequency of light.

Quote
Your simulation with the laser helped me to understand the beaming and the contraction effect, you wouldn't have one to explain the time dilation by chance?

The time dilation is already shown if you look at the counter under the diagram. It starts at a negative value and reaches zero when the light gets split at the semi-silvered mirror. That moment would represent a tick of a clock if you were to imagine the MMX apparatus to be a pair of light clocks. The next tick occurs when the light returns to the same mirror, and you could imagine that another pulse could be sent out from the laser and timed to split at the mirror at the same time as the previous pulse returns to it, thereby generating an ongoing series of equally-spaced ticks. On the stationary apparatus, a cycle (between two ticks) takes place in 250 counts of the counter, while on the moving apparatus a cycle takes 500 ticks. (The counter's time is based on a stationary clock.) We can see the cycle taking twice as long on the moving apparatus and that is the time dilation shown visually.

Quote
If the tics of a light clock would depend on the frequency of light, there couldn't be less tics each second since that second would actually be made of those tics, and if we assume that the phenomenon would come from the light exchanged between the particles of that clock, we are caught in the same circular trap but at a smaller scale. It might take more time for a sole pulse of light to travel between two moving mirrors, but we must send them continuously and at constant frequency to be able to register the tics, and the frequency of those tics would be the same whatever the speed since there would never be any doppler effect. If we can't run a simulation out of an idea that is simple enough to get simulated, then I think this idea has good chances to be wrong.

If you're co-moving with the moving apparatus, your entire functionality is slowed to half speed - all your cells and atoms are like clocks, doing things in cycles which take twice as long to run through because of the doubled communication distances. A laser, or anything else that produces light, will be cycling something as it generates a photon (hence the sine-wave shape) and that cycling will be running at half the normal rate, thereby "writing" photons into the aether with a lower frequency.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 04/06/2017 12:56:14
Mass contains kinetic energy while space has an energy limit of c. There is a ratio of energy used vs. energy available shown as a reaction rate increase and decrease. You can decrease available energy by increasing mass GR or by increasing the speed of mass SR. There is an equivalence between GR and SR relative to reaction rate. With an increase in mass GR the dilation of mass is physical so the cell length to measure a frequency increases to maintain the calibration of wavelength between frames. The reaction rate of course is based on the constant speed of light that has to go further in a dilated cell for GR. This happens all the way up to mass gravity acceleration at the speed of light where energy can no longer keep atoms apart and a BH is formed. There is no relativity within a BH. There is no energy within a BH and it becomes entirely kinetic.


thebox

  We have to recognize observations that the orientation of a clock does not affect the tick rate while the graphing of the physical paths would if it were not for some intervention. Physical contraction of length is one option that would align math to what is observed. The Doppler in space suggests a medium that speed pushes against to change the angle of light. Its interesting to know the electron path to the proton ratio is a marble to a football field. Speed should have no affect on orbit or create the Doppler affect without a medium. Motion would not be possible without an energy source. We recognize an energy limit of c while not recognizing where energy itself resides. Energy is c and the pattern on c (radiation) propagated at c shows energy of space is spin of dark mass. Relativity would not work if space moved by a direction as Einstein suggested. But spin of dark mass particles would satisfy relativity. Another option would be the spin state of energy rotates with planets, solar system, galaxies and the universe. In that case all of our measurements would be from a stationary frame for measurement locally relative to energy available as a ratio between kinetic used and c total. We have to understand energy before we can really understand our measurements.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/06/2017 17:11:46
Quite clearly I am going to have to up my game even further to get people to understand.


Let me use your own confusions to produce a ''parlour trick'' to show you how easy it is to manipulate the imagination.


An observer from above the train carriage observes light in the carriage travels slower than the light in the light clock.

 
* for idiots.jpg (30.52 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 4709 times)

Proving the speed of light is not constant.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 04/06/2017 22:25:19
While your eyes can be fooled math cannot
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/06/2017 15:50:13
While your eyes can be fooled math cannot
The point being Gog , when you look at the carriage from the side view and observe the angled paths of light travelling left to right or vice versus, your eyes are being fooled into creating foolish maths that means nothing.
You are being fooled, the light is directional to your eyes and not travelling left to right .   

* light1.jpg (29.72 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 4599 times)

Einstein wrongly uses the photon in his setup, the photon we can not  even observe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 05/06/2017 16:37:20
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 17:08:36
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

I think you might be allowed to post working links very soon. I'd like to follow both of those, so please give it another couple of goes.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 05/06/2017 17:19:57
This system is confusing. I can't upload graphics, but can post links.
I test the links to be sure they work.
????????????????????
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/06/2017 18:32:38
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r


I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 19:54:14
This system is confusing. I can't upload graphics, but can post links.
I test the links to be sure they work.
????????????????????

I'm confused by it too now - your links are actually working despite the "no follow" written after them which usually disables links by breaking them.

Quote
The SR solution to the MM experiment based on the 1905 paper. Length contraction was based on a method of measurement using the simultaneity convention. It was not a physical change of an object.

That bit could cause some confusion - in SR there is no physical change in the object, but the object will still fit into a smaller space when measured in other frames of reference, so the contraction is real for those frames. This becomes manifestly clear when you can fit more objects of a given length into a limited space around the edge of a circle when they're rotating round it than when they're just sitting still beside it, so it's important that people understand that it is not merely a visual contraction - it is a physical contraction for those frames, but that those frames don't provide a true picture of the underlying geometry of SR within which those objects maintain their full uncontracted lengths.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/06/2017 20:00:07
How about my animation David, can you see it now?
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 20:11:22
How about my animation David, can you see it now?
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)

Still no luck there. I'll see if it works better from my quotation of it...

...same problem, but the link may not be broken in itself - it looks as if it's an issue with the site being linked to:-

"This site can’t provide a secure connection

www . hostingpics . net uses an unsupported protocol.
ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH"
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/06/2017 20:43:24
I guess you're right, my browser says the same thing when I connect to the host. But I think it still takes around a hundred messages before we can put links. That parameter is supposed to block spamming, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 21:00:44
I guess you're right, my browser says the same thing when I connect to the host. But I think it still takes around a hundred messages before we can put links. That parameter is supposed to block spamming, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.

Having seen something of the scale of the spam attacks in the past, I can see why it's done - it helps to put them off bothering because they quickly learn that they can't get near to posting any viable links before they're banned.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/06/2017 21:29:37
I tried to attach the file and it seems to work. I can see the animation and there is no [nofollow] besides it. I had to click on the image to make it move though. I'm still working on my answer to your last post.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 22:13:41
I tried to attach the file and it seems to work. I can see the animation and there is no [nofollow] besides it. I had to click on the image to make it move though.

I have managed to view it, and the two black circles move along in jumps.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/06/2017 23:00:34
That's it! The black circles represent bonded particles. Now you have to imagine that a photon escapes from the left particle during its step, that it is blueshifted in the direction of the right particle since the step is made in that direction, and that it produces the step from that right particle because it has to get away from the left one for its own escaping photon to stay on sync with the incoming photon, thus with the step from the left particle. It works when the photon is traveling to the right, but when a photon escapes from the step of the right particle, it takes less time to reach the left particle than it took for the light from the left one to reach the right one, because that left particle has gotten closer during its step,  and I can't figure out what would happen. Since the steps looked natural on the paper, I thought they would be physically possible, but I now have a hard time to figure how they would.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 06/06/2017 16:47:20
Quote
Quote from: David



Quote

I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future?


The rocket has clocks which all record two years' worth of ticks, and the Earth has clocks which all record four years' worth of ticks in the same length of time. The twin in the rocket has been around for just as long as the twin on the Earth, but has spent four years running in slow motion and has aged two years less due to slowed functionality; all of that slowing being caused by doubled communication distances between atoms/etc. and within atoms. The idea of shortcuts into the future doesn't actually add up in any Spacetime model, either because it introduces contradictions or because it still needs a Newtonian time to be added to the model if it is to function rationally, at which point the shortcuts are seen as fake, merely being things running in slow motion against Newtonian time while covering a reduced distance through a superfluous time dimension.

From Repteux
Then why do you say that «Clocks are slowed by movement, but more importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all»? If you mean that clocks would not slow down for all observers at rest in aether, maybe you should say it this way, because since I did not believe that time could really slow down, I understood that time would not really slow down even for clocks in motion. I still have a doubt though, because I can't figure out how a light clock could register less tics while moving through aether. We can attribute the time dilation phenomenon to the atoms, but if a light clock can't measure it, how could the atoms do? You said that the walls of your moving box would get the same quantity of energy, so how would the atoms be able to measure a difference at their scale? We can't measure the speed of light one way, so how would the atoms be able to do so? With no difference in the speed of the information to measure, no difference in the frequency of light, and no difference in its intensity, it seems to me that a moving light clock, or two moving atoms exchanging energy, would have nothing more to register than if they were at rest.

Its all in our definition of time. Energy c is always constant as an amount of energy available. Motion deducts from the cycling of the electron in an atom. Consider energy c of and from space rather than from the electron. So it moves the electron and propagates the photon wave. A photon being a wave of LET Lorentz Ether Theory. You have to siphon some of the orbital speed in order to move the atom through space. The electron is the motor at constant revolutions with energy c. Having to move through more space with velocity than at relative rest naturally the cycle time is reduced proportionally with the relative propagation of the photon wave for tick rate. The longer orbit of the electron would also produce a greater wavelength.

There is an Aether grid pattern with particle spin that would produce Relativity. Its just to fantastic to even consider. Unless electrons move themselves and photons move themselves independent of a source. Then the relationship between GR and SR is just a coincidence.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/06/2017 18:15:39
It works when the photon is traveling to the right, but when a photon escapes from the step of the right particle, it takes less time to reach the left particle than it took for the light from the left one to reach the right one, because that left particle has gotten closer during its step,  and I can't figure out what would happen. Since the steps looked natural on the paper, I thought they would be physically possible, but I now have a hard time to figure how they would.

If you imagine two balls connected by a spring, you could set them moving through space by pushing one towards the other. That rear ball would compress the spring and lead to the lead ball being accelerated forward while decelerating the rear ball, possibly to a halt for a moment. The spring would then be stretched instead of compressed and would decelerate the lead ball, possibly to a halt, while accelerating the rear ball back up to speed, and this cycle could repeat of a long time, mimicking to some degree your two circles taking turns to move along. Perhaps there is something in this parallel that might relate to what you're trying to do with photons.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/06/2017 21:58:23
Its all in our definition of time. Energy c is always constant as an amount of energy available. Motion deducts from the cycling of the electron in an atom. Consider energy c of and from space rather than from the electron. So it moves the electron and propagates the photon wave. A photon being a wave of LET Lorentz Ether Theory. You have to siphon some of the orbital speed in order to move the atom through space. The electron is the motor at constant revolutions with energy c. Having to move through more space with velocity than at relative rest naturally the cycle time is reduced proportionally with the relative propagation of the photon wave for tick rate. The longer orbit of the electron would also produce a greater wavelength.

It seems possible that every part of matter involves all the energy from which it is built is moving around within it at c, so if the matter is to move along through space, its immediately obvious that its entire functionality will slow. You said before though that the space fabric is energy, and I wonder how you make that work. As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction, and it also accumulates extra mass such that there is twice as much of it when it's moving at 0.866c. That is a higher energy density which the fabric has to be able to accommodate, and I find it hard to imagine this as anything other than energy moving through the fabric rather than being the fabric. I also want to understand where your energy of the fabric has a role in this (or in anything).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/06/2017 03:37:33
It seems possible that every part of matter involves all the energy from which it is built is moving around within it at c,
That might be so but very unlikely. Controlled by the inside the likelihood of synchronization for billions of years would be can we suggest billions to one?


Quote
so if the matter is to move along through space, its immediately obvious that its entire functionality will slow. You said before though that the space fabric is energy, and I wonder how you make that work.

Take the Aether point by point and have complimentary spin. [/quote]
Quote
As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,
What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it.

Quote

and it also accumulates extra mass such that there is twice as much of it when it's moving at 0.866c.
Again unless energy is outside of mass there is no relativity.
Quote
That is a higher energy density which the fabric has to be able to accommodate, and I find it hard to imagine this as anything other than energy moving through the fabric rather than being the fabric.
Apparently so does everyone else.
Quote
I also want to understand where your energy of the fabric has a role in this (or in anything).

The role is motion itself being possible.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/06/2017 15:27:17
Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions.  I  hate to say it , the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/06/2017 16:50:55
Quote from: David
If you imagine two balls connected by a spring, you could set them moving through space by pushing one towards the other. That rear ball would compress the spring and lead to the lead ball being accelerated forward while decelerating the rear ball, possibly to a halt for a moment. The spring would then be stretched instead of compressed and would decelerate the lead ball, possibly to a halt, while accelerating the rear ball back up to speed, and this cycle could repeat of a long time, mimicking to some degree your two circles taking turns to move along. Perhaps there is something in this parallel that might relate to what you're trying to do with photons.
The spring would then be transferring kinetic energy into potential energy and vice versa, which is effectively what light would do, so let's see what might happen if we would accelerate the left ball strongly but for a short while.

First observation, it wouldn't stop right after the acceleration would stop as I expected from particles, it would move forward for a while because of its inertia. The steps already represent inertia since inertia is simply the combination of motion and resistance to acceleration, but they also show how those two phenomenon would develop at different scales. The energy stored in the steps between two atoms represent the loss of mass due to their bonding, and the energy stored in the steps between their components represent the loss of mass due to their own bonding, so if we consider the energy stored in the steps between all the components of an atom, we get its total mass. What happens is that when an atom makes a step, its components make billions of them, because they have to justify very precisely the step of the atom they are part of. So when we accelerate an atom, we accelerate its own step, and in the same time, we also accelerate the steps from all its components. It doesn't take much force to accelerate the step of the atom, thus it does not show much resistance to that acceleration, but it's components resist more, and their own components resist even more. With the steps, each time we measure the mass of an atom, we thus measure the energy it takes to accelerate the steps from all its components. If a particle is not bonded to another one, the light that bonds its components does not have to escape from their steps to produce a bonding at the particle's scale, so the steps between those components offer more resistance to their acceleration, thus they develop more mass.

Back to the first step made by the left particle, and let's assume that a step takes the same time to decelerate than the time it took to accelerate. Let's accelerate that particle until it gets to a top speed, and then let it decelerate until it stops. It stops when  there is no doppler effect between the two particles, which doesn't mean that the right particle did not begin to make a step, only that the photon escaping from that step has not yet reached the left particle, which is actually closer to it than when both were at rest, so when that right particle will begin its own step, the photon escaping from that step will still have less distance to travel than the one the photon from the left particle had, so it doesn't work better. With light, we cannot only consider the stored energy, we also have to consider the distance it travels. With a spring, there would also be a loss of stored energy due to heat, so the vibration would be damping with time, which is not the case for what we call inertial motion.

I found a new way to present the problem, and it has something to do with contraction. As I said, if we accelerate the left particle, we automatically shorten the distance between the two particles for a while, but if we keep accelerating that particle after the right one has moved away, the doppler effect from the right one would pull the left one forward while it is still being accelerated. This way, the distance between the two particles would contract right at the acceleration, and it would stay contracted until a deceleration occurs. The doppler energy would still be trapped between the two particles, and it would still produce their motion, except that this time, they would move at the same time, so as for the MMx mirrors, it wouldn't matter if the photons would not travel the same distance. It is more difficult to imagine, but I think it can work, and it would have the advantage of providing a mechanism for length contraction that doesn't need the two arms of the MMx, only one. By the way, what do you think of Yuri Yvanov's contraction happening to both arms of the interferometer? Did you have time to study it?
( rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#2.05 )
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/06/2017 16:55:05
Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions. I hate to say it, the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.
It sure is, reason why we shouldn't take too seriously what is happening to us, except when it hurts for real, not just in our heads.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/06/2017 17:53:44
the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

Relative to what?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/06/2017 19:17:37
Relative to the better place we imagine I guess, which would not be better after a while of course.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/06/2017 19:52:10
Quote
As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,
What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it.

"Compresses" wasn't the right word for what I intended to say. My point was that there's more energy contained in that part of the fabric, and a lot more would be there if there was a black hole present, so how can this energy be the fabric rather than merely being held in some way by the fabric while passing through it?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/06/2017 20:17:37
Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions.  I  hate to say it , the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

You've been shown that a pair of perpendicular light clocks will tick in sync if stationary and that they will go out of sync if they are moving unless there is length-contraction. You're free to reject length-contraction if you wish, but I can't understand why the idea of it offends you so much. By rejecting it, you leave yourself unable to account for the null result of MMX and for the behaviour of particles in particle accelerators (where relativistic mass prevents them from reaching c no matter how much energy you add to them and necessarily leads to length-contracted orbits for systems moving at high speed through space), so you appear to be the one who's suffering from a delusion because you reject the science instead of accommodating it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/06/2017 22:02:34
Quote from: GoC on Today at 03:37:33QuoteAs material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it."Compresses" wasn't the right word for what I intended to say. My point was that there's more energy contained in that part of the fabric, and a lot more would be there if there was a black hole present, so how can this energy be the fabric rather than merely being held in some way by the fabric while passing through it?

Linking electrons by the same speed insures energy is not inside of mass for motion. Clocks slow with more mass not speed up so energy is dilated.

There is no energy nor time in a BH. Unless you have a different definition of time. Time is related to c in kinetic vs. potential energy. Potential energy of space is the greatest where clocks run fastest. All mass does is dilate space energy we measure as tick rate. There is no fabric inside a BH. Fabric bend completely around a BH. It's not that light cannot escape a BH, light cannot reach a BH. Relativity is not part of a BH. BH's are mass suckers only, void of time energy.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 08/06/2017 00:37:54
Linking electrons by the same speed insures energy is not inside of mass for motion. Clocks slow with more mass not speed up so energy is dilated.

When moving clocks collide, all that relativistic mass is unleashed as energy (which is what it was all along).

Quote
There is no energy nor time in a BH.

There's rather a lot of it if you convert the mass to energy.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 08/06/2017 11:42:37
When moving clocks collide, all that relativistic mass is unleashed as energy (which is what it was all along).
Energy creates mass in suns by fusion. In the life cycle of a sun larger elements are also formed until a red giant finishes the smaller suns life cycle. All suns create hydrogen from dark mass energy similar to galaxies forming BH's for another fractal universe of size. Consider our environment of the electron traveling the distance of a football field to the size of a marble for the proton.
So what is the definition of fundamental energy vs. kinetic energy we recognize as work being done? Your ideas focus on work being done and kinetic relationships.


QuoteThere is no energy nor time in a BH.There's rather a lot of it if you convert the mass to energy.

Fission does happen in suns but fusion remains king to the red giant. Suns cannot get rid of their own waste production (higher elements) and choke out the fusion fission process with hydrogen.

BH's are the ultimate entropy never to be fundamental energy again as they continue to suck the mass from the universe. I consider it unlikely the universe is as small as science suggests and I would expect spectral limits of detection between observable images and noise.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 09/06/2017 19:42:55
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x









A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r


I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.

If that's a complement, as it appears to be, I'd better have it bronzed!
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 09/06/2017 20:34:43
This is a graphic for your 2:1 scenario for anaut A and B.
No issues with this. If we substitute E (earth) for A, what does .99c have to do with anything?
The relative speed shoud be the same for each observer.
https://app.box.com/s/r69uq5s2o19s0o72rm8sfvc2ft6z2e2a
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/06/2017 21:06:35
What's the 0.99c?

Well, if you consider yourself to be stationary and a planet goes past you at 0.866c, a rocket moving in that same direction at 0.99c will appear to observers on the planet to be moving at 0.866c relative to them (and they will also measure you as moving at 0.866c in the opposite direction).

(0.866 + 0.866) / (1 + 0.866 x 0.866) = apx. 0.99.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 10/06/2017 19:10:56
What's the 0.99c?

Well, if you consider yourself to be stationary and a planet goes past you at 0.866c, a rocket moving in that same direction at 0.99c will appear to observers on the planet to be moving at 0.866c relative to them (and they will also measure you as moving at 0.866c in the opposite direction).

(0.866 + 0.866) / (1 + 0.866 x 0.866) = apx. 0.99.
The initial conditions were B leaving E at .866 and returning at .866. Thus B would measure E leaving at .866 in the opposite direction. There is no 3rd observer, and no need for composition of velocities.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 10/06/2017 19:13:41
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r


I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.
The graphics are not representing images as perceived by the observer. They are histories of object speeds and light speeds for an interval of time, and their  interactions. They are not intended to be viewed as road maps.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/06/2017 20:06:08
You asked,

...what does .99c have to do with anything?

I assumed that you're referring to some place in my webpage where I've used that figure. If so, then it involved three things moving relative to each other. With the interactive Spacetime diagram I have two planets moving past each other and two rockets which belong to them (one each), and that's the only place on the page where I mention the 0.99c figure. When the planets meet, the rockets switch which planet they accompany for a while before racing after their own planet some time later to be reunited with it. During that part of the process you can have one planet regarding itself as stationary while another planet passes it and moves away at 0.866c, then a rocket which stopped with the stationary planet for a time will chase after its home planet at 0.99c (a speed which will be measured by observers on that other planet as 0.866c). If the first planet regards itself as moving at 0.866c though, it will imagine that it is passing a stationary planet and that when the rocket heads home to the stationary planet it will travel there at 0.866c, but even then the 0.99c figure is still involved as the other rocket will have to chase the first planet at 0.99c from the stationary planet.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 11/06/2017 13:47:51
You also mentioned .99c in the cyclotron.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/06/2017 18:29:16
You also mentioned .99c in the cyclotron.

Not on my web page, and the title of your diagram (and its content) suggested that you were referring to its mention there.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 12/06/2017 11:47:05
I did not have the diagram. I was just mentioning where you said 0.99c during this thread.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 12/06/2017 17:51:57
I did not have the diagram. I was just mentioning where you said 0.99c during this thread.

I thought I was replying to phyti and didn't realise you'd jumped into that thread of the conversation, but yes - I remember using it somewhere in this thread in relation to particle accelerators.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/06/2017 17:02:28
Hi David,

I'm not sure you saw the last paragraph from my last message (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70299.msg516166#msg516166), so here it is again:

«I found a new way to present the problem, and it has something to do with contraction. As I said, if we accelerate the left particle, we automatically shorten the distance between the two particles for a while, but if we keep accelerating that particle after the right one has moved away, the doppler effect from the right one would pull the left one forward while it is still being accelerated. This way, the distance between the two particles would contract right at the acceleration, and it would stay contracted until a deceleration occurs. The doppler energy would still be trapped between the two particles, and it would still produce their motion, except that this time, they would move at the same time, so as for the MMx mirrors, it wouldn't matter if the photons would not travel the same distance. It is more difficult to imagine, but I think it can work, and it would have the advantage of providing a mechanism for length contraction that doesn't need the two arms of the MMx, only one. By the way, what do you think of Yuri Yvanov's contraction happening to both arms of the interferometer? Did you have time to study it?
( rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#2.05 )
»

I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though. Once accelerated, these particles manage to stay on sync even if light takes more time between them, and they use doppler effect to do so. Whatever the time a photon takes to travel between them, that photon is redshifted one way and blue shifted the other way, and it is the only information that those particles can use to stay on sync. The time the photon takes is as unavailable to them as it is to us, otherwise two observers could tell which one of them was moving just by looking at their clocks once reunited. By the way, if your two observers in your ships can't tell which one is moving, then how could one of them record less time on his clock than the other? Wouldn't it mean that he was the one to travel?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 13/06/2017 17:58:10
I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though

I am still struggling with the measurements of the mmx. Is it just the mirrors contracting? Does the space between the mirrors contract? Was the space between the mirrors already contracted when the measured distances between the mirrors took place? Is there a way to measure accurately enough with contracted length?

Has the MMX been done that can rotate each distances for orientation without changing their physical distances (Other than suspected length contraction ) with the rotation?
How do you prove space Aether does not rotate with mass?

If the Aether is energy and energy rotates with mass all bets for length contraction is off. The Null result would just mean what they were testing for ( stationary particles earth was moving through) was invalid. It would also mean the standard model is incorrect.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 13/06/2017 21:14:30
Hi David,

I'm not sure you saw the last paragraph from my last message (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70299.msg516166#msg516166), so here it is again:

I did see it and intended to reply to it, but every time I attempt to do so I run into the same problem - it just makes my mind go blank, probably because its trying to build upon a number of things that I haven't yet fully got my mind around, and I'm just not ready to go there. There's a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve things moving along in jumps, and I'd rather acquire a complete understanding of that first before abandoning it in favour of something that might turn out to be more correct but which adds a lot of additional complexity. However, illustrating it using diagrams like Иванов has done could make a considerable difference.

Quote
By the way, what do you think of Yuri Yvanov's contraction happening to both arms of the interferometer? Did you have time to study it?

I suspect he's working with the wrong frequency, not realising that the thing producing the light will have a slowed mechanism that leads to a longer wavelength, so he's producing numbers for a shorter wavelength than reality provides and is predicting a shrinking apparatus as a result, which means that his prediction won't match up to the time dilation measured by experiments. That means though that the rest of his work could be spot on once that correction's been made.

Quote
I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though. Once accelerated, these particles manage to stay on sync even if light takes more time between them, and they use doppler effect to do so. Even if a photon takes more time to travel between them, that photon is redshifted one way and blue shifted the other way, and it is the only information that those particles can use to stay on sync. The time the photon takes is as unavailable to them as it is to us, otherwise two observers could tell which one of them was moving just by looking at their clocks once reunited.

I'm having trouble picturing when these photons set out relative to when which particles are moving, when they arrive, etc., and that's why it would help if it was accompanied by a series of diagrams to show the progress of how the system moves along.

Quote
By the way, if your two observers in your ships can't tell which one is moving, then how could one of them record less time on his clock than the other? Wouldn't it mean that he was the one to travel?

One account of the action claims that one observer is stationary throughout while the other moves away and then moves back, so the one that moved will have slowed clocks and will record less time as having passed. Another account of the action claims that one observer is stationary for part of the time and then moves much faster than the other in order to catch up with him while the other is moving at a constant speed throughout, so in this case the latter has clocks running slow throughout while the former has clocks running faster at first, but then his clocks are slowed much more severely when he travels really fast, and that leads to his clocks recording less time overall.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 14/06/2017 11:40:16
David

   Was the measured distance in the MMX mirrors done with the contracted length?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 14/06/2017 19:10:28
David;
Would you reconsider your scenario of A and B, with B moving at .866c?

Since clock processes are periodic or frequencies, they are perceived as doppler shifted depending on relative speed of emitter and detector.

For diverging paths,   f'=f*sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)].

For converging paths,   f'=f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].

One is the inverse of the other.

In 'doppler1', B is moving at .6c relative to A. Each emits 1 flash per minute, controlled by their local clock.
Below the origin, f'= sqrt[1/4]=1/2.
Above the origin, f'= sqrt[4]=2.

In 'doppler2', B is moving at .866c relative to A. Each emits 1 flash per minute, controlled by their local clock.

Below the origin, f'= sqrt[.072]=.27
Above the origin, f'= sqrt[13.925]=3.73.

In the second case f' is almost 4.
If f'=4, solving for v gives 15/17= .8824.
https://app.box.com/s/bozja9eerupydqnja3spl6oeqbhezz9f

https://app.box.com/s/o6dvgo5nxkt8dqe7pn7h8bzquorwciv2
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/06/2017 23:00:02
I am still struggling with the measurements of the mmx. Is it just the mirrors contracting? Does the space between the mirrors contract? Was the space between the mirrors already contracted when the measured distances between the mirrors took place? Is there a way to measure accurately enough with contracted length?

and (before I answer that) from a later post:-

Quote
Was the measured distance in the MMX mirrors done with the contracted length?

The mirrors contract, as does whatever material is holding them apart from each other. You might want to say that the space between them has contracted in the sense that the gap between the mirrors has been reduced, but the space fabric itself doesn't contract, so there is simply less of it there between the mirrors. But you're asking about measuring this, and if you measure it while co-moving with it, your ruler will be length-contracted to match, so you won't measure any contraction. The only measurements we can make are either from a co-moving frame (in which the apparatus is stationary) which will not show any contraction, or from a different frame which would show contraction if you we could move fast enough past the apparatus and measure it accurately enough (which I don't think we can yet do), and, of course, that measured contraction would not be real if the apparatus was actually stationary, so we can never produce absolute measurements. We can only ever make conditional measurements (e.g. if A then B) where we pick a frame and say things like "if this frame is the absolute frame, then xy has contracted", and because all the measurements we can actually make show no contraction, we're only able to use reasoning to determine that the arms must sometimes be contracted.

Quote
Has the MMX been done that can rotate each distances for orientation without changing their physical distances (Other than suspected length contraction ) with the rotation?

If you mean, can you turn it round without introducing distortions to it, then yes - you can let the planet rotate it for you.

Quote
How do you prove space Aether does not rotate with mass?

You send atomic clocks out and about on space probes and satellites and see how their movement slows down or speeds up - any unexpected change in the speed the fabric of space moves relative to them would show up in the timings.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/06/2017 23:30:26
David;
Would you reconsider your scenario of A and B, with B moving at .866c?

Have you found a fault with it? If so, you'll need to spell out what it is.

Quote
Below the origin, f'= sqrt[.072]=.27
Above the origin, f'= sqrt[13.925]=3.73.

In the second case f' is almost 4.
If f'=4, solving for v gives 15/17= .8824.

This second case is the relevant one, and your diagram fits with mine - the time value 1 on the moving clock occurs at the same height as the value 2 appears on the stationary clock, so that shows that the moving clock is ticking at half the rate of the stationary one. My diagram is different from yours though in one major respect, and that's that the lines you show going from the points labelled "1" at sloping angles taking them to the other planet and reaching them when the local clocks display the time 3.73 are both paths for light travelling from place to place, whereas my diagram shows lines at a slightly steeper angle which represent the paths of rockets moving in one case at 0.99c (the one moving from planet A to planet B) and in the other case at 0.866c (the one moving from planet B to planet A). Those rockets both arrive at their destination when the local clock reads 4 (and the rocket clock says 2).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 15/06/2017 15:48:54
David;
Would you reconsider your scenario of A and B, with B moving at .866c?

Have you found a fault with it? If so, you'll need to spell out what it is.
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.
For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/06/2017 19:05:59
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.
For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.

Are you referring to the part of the page where I show diagrams with two space-shuttle-style rockets, first moving apart (in one interactive diagram) and then moving together (in the next diagram)? If so, you must be talking about the bit where I say, "When the crew of rocket A listen to the beeps coming from rocket B, they may hear the beeps coming in at one beep every two seconds. When the crew of rocket B listen to the beeps coming from rocket A though, they too will hear one beep every two seconds. It isn't quite that simple though, because there are awkward Doppler effect complications..."

The one beep every two seconds is what they would hear on average if you combine equal parts of them moving closer together and then moving apart again with the pass made halfway through. The two interactive diagrams then show the way the Doppler effect complications make for different timings between the beeps arriving for the two cases, but it also shows how the rates of arrival of the beeps match up for both rockets against their clocks. I don't actually provide numbers for how many beeps arrive per second of either clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21
David,

    On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity. Considering all forms that measures light are  indirect.

Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on Earth. This is a confirmed fact. Now latitude measurements are simultaneity of relativity only for distance. So on the Earth, latitude measurements allow 90 degree measurements that disregard the forward spin. There is no difference with measurements of spin direction to rotation around the sun. So we are only measuring rotation of the Earth with longitude differences from simultaneity of relativity distance measurements. This would be c+v and c-v for distance measurements. If light actually goes 90 degrees all bets are off for contraction. Measurements of light highly suggests a 90 degree path of the first photon to hit the mirror in the latitude position. This also suggests on the Earth latitude measurements are exactly c+v and c-v for distance measurements of simultaneity of relativity.

This being the case it would be c+v and c-v exactly compensates for distance traveled in any orientation of a clock angle without contraction. The suggestion of a fixed frame of a returned position for light that includes mass will be met with much criticism. But measurements suggest this to be an accurate understanding of the GR SR combination of energy's stable position relative to mass separate from SR that is void of mass. The Earth may carry its own energy aura of dilated energy exchanging energy from the threshold of the aura. This would allow rotation of the Earth not to be affected directly from the Earth rotation around the sun.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 17/06/2017 15:34:03
Hi David,

I'm not sure you saw the last paragraph from my last message (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70299.msg516166#msg516166), so here it is again:
I did see it and intended to reply to it, but every time I attempt to do so I run into the same problem - it just makes my mind go blank, probably because its trying to build upon a number of things that I haven't yet fully got my mind around, and I'm just not ready to go there. There's a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve things moving along in jumps, and I'd rather acquire a complete understanding of that first before abandoning it in favour of something that might turn out to be more correct but which adds a lot of additional complexity. However, illustrating it using diagrams like Иванов has done could make a considerable difference.
Yes, Yvanov has nice diagrams and animations, but he has none to explain inertia (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#3.08), and I find my own explanation easier to understand. It is the only place in his paper where he moves a particle before the other is aware of the motion, and I find it easier to consider that it then has to face doppler effect than to consider that it resists to get out of its potential hole. But as he told me when I tried to discuss with him a few years ago, our two theories are almost the same. At the time, I took for granted that he was right about contraction happening to both arms of the MM interferometer, but your simulation shows that he is wrong, so I'll go through his maths and try to find the flaw. As you say, maybe he is working with the wrong frequency.

Quote from: David
Quote
I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though. Once accelerated, these particles manage to stay on sync even if light takes more time between them, and they use doppler effect to do so. Even if a photon takes more time to travel between them, that photon is redshifted one way and blue shifted the other way, and it is the only information that those particles can use to stay on sync. The time the photon takes is as unavailable to them as it is to us, otherwise two observers could tell which one of them was moving just by looking at their clocks once reunited.
I'm having trouble picturing when these photons set out relative to when which particles are moving, when they arrive, etc., and that's why it would help if it was accompanied by a series of diagrams to show the progress of how the system moves along.
Here we go: (I sent you a PM with the diagram, please quote it in you answer)
(https://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/642753Diagrammereptation.png) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=642753Diagrammereptation.png)
We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. I did not account for the time dilation of particle A since it moves before particle B, but I think we should. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce that doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction. Of course motion is a bit more complicated this way, but we can discard the complicated Higgs, and we can study more closely what happens with motion at the micro scale, which could help us to link Relativity theory to Quantum theory.

Quote from: David
Quote
By the way, if your two observers in your ships can't tell which one is moving, then how could one of them record less time on his clock than the other? Wouldn't it mean that he was the one to travel?
One account of the action claims that one observer is stationary throughout while the other moves away and then moves back, so the one that moved will have slowed clocks and will record less time as having passed. Another account of the action claims that one observer is stationary for part of the time and then moves much faster than the other in order to catch up with him while the other is moving at a constant speed throughout, so in this case the latter has clocks running slow throughout while the former has clocks running faster at first, but then his clocks are slowed much more severely when he travels really fast, and that leads to his clocks recording less time overall.
OK! I got it this time! Sorry, I did not follow the complete reasoning the first times I read it. It works, and apart from braking the cause and effect law, it also works with SR, so I wonder why the physicists on other scientific forums refuse to use it to raise the Twins' paradox. As you say, a theory that contains a paradox is wrong by definition. I saw that your conversation with Peter Donis was erased, and I also saw that the original thread you refer to was erased too, so I'm forced to conclude like you that they need to hide something. I'm still having a hard time to convince myself that time slows down though, I've been thinking the contrary for so long! I'm surprised that it took so little a time to change my mind though. Did you succeed to convince anybody else than me yet? I had nice discussions on Anti-Relativity.com lately, and it suddenly stopped being accessible. The guy that started it died a few years ago, so he probably stopped paying for the url. He was a LET enthusiast too, but he was less convincing than you. Have you tried sciencechatforum.com yet? They treat miscreants like you nicely there too. :0)

P.S.  Here is my conversion to time dilation and length contraction on sciencechatforum.com (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270)
sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 17/06/2017 19:02:01
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.
For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.

The drawings correctly show 3.73 between signals when separating and .27 between signals when closing, for both A and B, when using the relativistic Doppler expressions.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 21:47:19
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.
For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.

The drawings correctly show 3.73 between signals when separating and .27 between signals when closing, for both A and B, when using the relativistic Doppler expressions.

I never actually stopped to work out what the values would be, but those sound right - if you add them together and half the answer, you get one beep every two seconds which is what both rockets should work out that they're hearing on average, tying in neatly with what they will expect to hear if they both assume themselves to be stationary while the other rocket moves past them.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 22:50:34
On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.

Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?

Quote
Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on Earth. This is a confirmed fact.

Shouldn't they tick slower at the equator than the poles for the same altitude? Has that been tested?

Quote
Now latitude measurements are simultaneity of relativity only for distance. So on the Earth, latitude measurements allow 90 degree measurements that disregard the forward spin. There is no difference with measurements of spin direction to rotation around the sun. So we are only measuring rotation of the Earth with longitude differences from simultaneity of relativity distance measurements.

I can't make sense of that.

Quote
This would be c+v and c-v for distance measurements. If light actually goes 90 degrees all bets are off for contraction. Measurements of light highly suggests a 90 degree path of the first photon to hit the mirror in the latitude position. This also suggests on the Earth latitude measurements are exactly c+v and c-v for distance measurements of simultaneity of relativity.

I can't make sense of that either. "If light actually goes 90 degrees..." - I don't know what that's 90 degrees away from, but I can't see what you're getting at anyway. At any given moment with the MMX, the rotation of the Earth is too slow to have any relevance beyond merely adding to or subtracting a little from the straight-line speed of the apparatus through space, and the main thing of interest to us is how the MMX behaves six months apart in time.

Quote
This being the case it would be c+v and c-v exactly compensates for distance traveled in any orientation of a clock angle without contraction. The suggestion of a fixed frame of a returned position for light that includes mass will be met with much criticism. But measurements suggest this to be an accurate understanding of the GR SR combination of energy's stable position relative to mass separate from SR that is void of mass. The Earth may carry its own energy aura of dilated energy exchanging energy from the threshold of the aura. This would allow rotation of the Earth not to be affected directly from the Earth rotation around the sun.

And again I can't make sense of that, but too many things have come out of experiments to show us that length-contraction should happen, so it wouldn't go away even if you could find some kind of ether-drag or aura voodoo to stop it affecting the MMX on Earth. We send space probes out to the planets and they don't show up any atomic clocks slowing or speeding up as they move from one bubble of ether-drag to another.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 18/06/2017 01:01:39
Here we go: (I sent you a PM with the diagram, please quote it in you answer)

It just comes out blank. Maybe you could get it to me via Facebook and I can then try attaching it to a post here. Once I've seen the diagram, I might then be able to follow the description.

Quote
OK! I got it this time! Sorry, I did not follow the complete reasoning the first times I read it. It works, and apart from braking the cause and effect law, it also works with SR, so I wonder why the physicists on other scientific forums refuse to use it to raise the Twins' paradox. As you say, a theory that contains a paradox is wrong by definition.

The twins' paradox isn't really a paradox though as it makes full sense for any frame of reference you choose to analyse it from. It's the contradictions in the accounts of events from different frames of reference that break any theory that claims they're all frames are equally valid because the accounts cannot all be true, and if one account is more true than all the others, that is not an equality of validity for all frames.

Quote
I saw that your conversation with Peter Donis was erased,

That was all in PMs (so it was never on view to the public) - it may still exist there for all I know - it certainly generated a lot of interest judging by all the people being invited to join in, and I was able to capture all the action and mugshots. It's a nice prize to have, and the time will come when they all wish they'd had the courage to call it differently instead of conforming to the required beliefs of what is actually a religion.

Quote
and I also saw that the original thread you refer to was erased too, so I'm forced to conclude like you that they need to hide something.

They erase within minutes anything that goes against the clergy, and they've banned a lot of professional physicists too. In doing so, they make a mockery of science, but that'll just make it all the more fun when the whole thing unravels for them after AGI takes over the show and starts to call all the shots. They will never be allowed to forget how much they have abused the people who have rightly objected to their disproven assertions.

Quote
I'm still having a hard time to convince myself that time slows down though, I've been thinking the contrary for so long! I'm surprised that it took so little a time to change my mind though.

But I don't agree that time slows down - I only say that moving clocks slow down, and the functionality of anything that can serve as a clock, such as a computer, a cell, an atom, etc. Time itself runs at a constant rate, and we can certainly see that the light in a light clock is not moving through space any slower when the light clock is moving through space - the light continues to race through the space fabric at full speed, and given that that is a fundamental component of the light clock, what sense does it make to say that time has slowed for the clock when that component is not slowed at all? All we have is an apparent slowing of time for objects that move fast through space or sit in a gravity well due to their slowed cycles, but that apparent slowing is all caused by slowed functionality due to greater communication distances or by light being slowed in the presence of a lot of mass.

Quote
Did you succeed to convince anybody else than me yet?

Most people who shift position from the SR side seem to move to the point where they sit on the fence rather than actually changing sides, but that's a step in the right direction.

Quote
I had nice discussions on Anti-Relativity.com lately, and it suddenly stopped being accessible.

How recently did you register there? I discovered it quite a few years ago but couldn't register, which was a pity because there were quite a few things there that I wanted to comment on to stop people wasting their time flogging dead horses where they thought they'd worked out how to measure the one-way speed of light and had made fundamental errors. All my attempts at registering failed, but via another forum I eventually managed to trigger a member into posting an explanation - the person behind the forum had stopped communicating with them and no one else knew the passwords for taking over control, so they couldn't do anything. It was a ship sailing on without a captain, but if he's died, he must have paid for a lot of years of webhosting up front because the money still doesn't appear to have run out - the forum's still up.

Quote
Have you tried sciencechatforum.com yet? They treat miscreants like you nicely there too. :0)

I'm not greatly keen to open up new fronts as it just eats a lot of time for no real gain - realistically, nothing's going to change until we have AGI systems running on all computers so that millions of AGI users can join every science forum and outgun the clergy there. AGI will soon be running on the clergy's own machines too, so they won't even be able to type any of their nonsense in any more without being firmly told that they're in direct conflict with reason whenever they make unacceptable assertions about the rightness of disproven theories. This would also help all the people questioning the science (or trying to get their head around it) if they could talk it through with AGI first instead of with a human so that they don't get misled by other humans who often don't understand the science that they imagine they're well placed to teach - most of the problems that keep coming up seem to result from people filling their heads with incorrect science which they then have enormous difficulty unlearning.

Quote
P.S.  Here is my conversion to time dilation and length contraction on sciencechatforum.com (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270)
sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270

Your diagram doesn't appear for me there either - there's just a tiny rectangle with "image" written in it. Perhaps my computer's blocking images that other people can see?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/06/2017 18:26:07
Maybe you could get it to me via Facebook and I can then try attaching it to a post here. Once I've seen the diagram, I might then be able to follow the description.
I sent it through an email @magicschoolbook.com . I used another computer to open the file at sciencechat and it worked, so the problem might indeed be with your computer, but I can't see what might be going wrong with it.

Quote from: David
Quote
I saw that your conversation with Peter Donis was erased,
That was all in PMs (so it was never on view to the public) - it may still exist there for all I know - it certainly generated a lot of interest judging by all the people being invited to join in, and I was able to capture all the action and mugshots. It's a nice prize to have, and the time will come when they all wish they'd had the courage to call it differently instead of conforming to the required beliefs of what is actually a religion.
We can't blame people to be religious. What we get as a child is there for good. Evolution is a slow process, even for ideas. My theory on mass helps me to understand our own resistance to change. It is completely subconscious, impossible to detect except indirectly, when people point to our lack of willing for instance, which usually produces a bad feeling instead of a change in our ideas. I promised myself never to insult people, but when I feel insulted repeatedly, it's hard to stay cool. I usually get sarcastic when it happens, which is a kind of compromise. I try to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. I hide my feelings under the rug a bit.

Quote
They erase within minutes anything that goes against the clergy, and they've banned a lot of professional physicists too. In doing so, they make a mockery of science, but that'll just make it all the more fun when the whole thing unravels for them after AGI takes over the show and starts to call all the shots. They will never be allowed to forget how much they have abused the people who have rightly objected to their disproven assertions.
I think that's what it looks from our side, and that they get the same feeling from their side. We can never force a torturer to admit he was wrong, because it is not the feeling he gets when he tortures.

Quote
But I don't agree that time slows down - I only say that moving clocks slow down, and the functionality of anything that can serve as a clock, such as a computer, a cell, an atom, etc. Time itself runs at a constant rate, and we can certainly see that the light in a light clock is not moving through space any slower when the light clock is moving through space - the light continues to race through the space fabric at full speed, and given that that is a fundamental component of the light clock, what sense does it make to say that time has slowed for the clock when that component is not slowed at all? All we have is an apparent slowing of time for objects that move fast through space or sit in a gravity well due to their slowed cycles, but that apparent slowing is all caused by slowed functionality due to greater communication distances or by light being slowed in the presence of a lot of mass.
I understand that you attribute time to the distance light travels, as we do for the lightyear. This might be useful if that distance was constant, but your MMx simulation shows that it travels more distance one way than the other, so what would be the true time? Maybe you mean the distance traveled in aether, but then there would be no way to detect the true time, and if there is no way for us, my theory shows that there would be no way for atoms either, so this kind of time would be useless too. Besides, if we assimilate time to aging, to me, the fact that one of the twins gets younger means that his time has slowed down. Visibly, I do not understand yet what you exactly mean.

Quote from: David
Quote
Did you succeed to convince anybody else than me yet?
Most people who shift position from the SR side seem to move to the point where they sit on the fence rather than actually changing sides, but that's a step in the right direction.
Even atoms resist to change their ideas, and they have no idea that they are doing so either! :0)

Quote from: David
Quote
I had nice discussions on Anti-Relativity.com lately, and it suddenly stopped being accessible.
How recently did you register there? .... the forum's still up.
You're right, the forum is back online. I registered six months ago. I can try to register you with your name and give you the password after if you wish.

Quote
I'm not greatly keen to open up new fronts as it just eats a lot of time for no real gain - realistically, nothing's going to change until we have AGI systems running on all computers so that millions of AGI users can join every science forum and outgun the clergy there. AGI will soon be running on the clergy's own machines too, so they won't even be able to type any of their nonsense in any more without being firmly told that they're in direct conflict with reason whenever they make unacceptable assertions about the rightness of disproven theories. This would also help all the people questioning the science (or trying to get their head around it) if they could talk it through with AGI first instead of with a human so that they don't get misled by other humans who often don't understand the science that they imagine they're well placed to teach - most of the problems that keep coming up seem to result from people filling their heads with incorrect science which they then have enormous difficulty unlearning.
That's exactly what resistance is about, and I can see no way to avoid it. To me, resistance can only be surmounted by hazard, the same way evolution of species can only happen if mutations are random. This idea suggests me that atoms cannot be accelerated without hazard participating to the process either, so the hazard that we experiment at the atoms' scale might be due to atoms trying all the possibilities their components offer to find the speed or the direction they are forced to take at our scale.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 18/06/2017 20:11:07
David,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0501034

QuoteClocks tick at the same rate at sea level on Earth. This is a confirmed fact.Shouldn't they tick slower at the equator than the poles for the same altitude? Has that been tested?
We are not talking about altitude. We are referencing sea level on earth. You can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances. Once you understand this you might have a better understanding of what I am describing.

Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?
Einstein and relativity.

QuoteThis would be c+v and c-v for distance measurements. If light actually goes 90 degrees all bets are off for contraction. Measurements of light highly suggests a 90 degree path of the first photon to hit the mirror in the latitude position. This also suggests on the Earth latitude measurements are exactly c+v and c-v for distance measurements of simultaneity of relativity.I can't make sense of that either. "If light actually goes 90 degrees..." - I don't know what that's 90 degrees away from, but I can't see what you're getting at anyway. At any given moment with the MMX, the rotation of the Earth is too slow to have any relevance beyond merely adding to or subtracting a little from the straight-line speed of the apparatus through space, and the main thing of interest to us is how the MMX behaves six months apart in time.
It does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.

I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.

QuoteNow latitude measurements are simultaneity of relativity only for distance. So on the Earth, latitude measurements allow 90 degree measurements that disregard the forward spin. There is no difference with measurements of spin direction to rotation around the sun. So we are only measuring rotation of the Earth with longitude differences from simultaneity of relativity distance measurements.I can't make sense of that.

My communication skills are poor. North and south directions do not add or subtract distances while East to West decreases distance for light while West to East increases distance light has to travel due to light being independent of the source. The distances exactly correct for each other to the same source on Earth.


QuoteThis being the case it would be c+v and c-v exactly compensates for distance traveled in any orientation of a clock angle without contraction. The suggestion of a fixed frame of a returned position for light that includes mass will be met with much criticism. But measurements suggest this to be an accurate understanding of the GR SR combination of energy's stable position relative to mass separate from SR that is void of mass. The Earth may carry its own energy aura of dilated energy exchanging energy from the threshold of the aura. This would allow rotation of the Earth not to be affected directly from the Earth rotation around the sun.And again I can't make sense of that, but too many things have come out of experiments to show us that length-contraction should happen, so it wouldn't go away even if you could find some kind of ether-drag or aura voodoo to stop it affecting the MMX on Earth. We send space probes out to the planets and they don't show up any atomic clocks slowing or speeding up as they move from one bubble of ether-drag to another

I am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo. Length contraction for light distance traveled is correct. That is part of relativity. It is not necessarily the physical distance that is contracted when you understand the possibility of light distances using atomic clocks and relativity locally.

Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant. In the North South then South North directions are equal distances so the two way speed of light always auto corrects the SoP in both directions. North South does not need auto correction because there is no change in distance with either direction.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/06/2017 00:45:38
Hi Raymond,

I've got your diagram from the email, so here it is along with the text:-

"Here is the diagram about contraction. The acceleration stops at t4 for A and at t5 for B, so the contraction and the speed is stable from t5 to t7, but it is still doppler effect that drives the atoms, and we can imagine that this effect is also producing the motion of their components, providing they are bonded and no energy is lost during the process. If any light succeeds to escape from the components, it has to produce the bonding between the atoms, and if it escapes from the atoms, it has to produce gravity. When we accelerate A, it produces doppler effect on the light issued from B, so it resists to move towards B, and its components do the same thing with regard to one another, so if we add all those resistances, we get the whole mass of the atom. This explains why particles get lighter when they bond, or why mass is equivalent to energy, or the relation between light energy and kinetic energy."

It's late here, so I'll just post this now so that other people can study it too, and I'll get back to it tomorrow.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 19/06/2017 11:22:45


In the standard model there should be no Doppler at all. There needs to be resistance to a medium for a Doppler affect.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 01:00:42
I understand that you attribute time to the distance light travels, as we do for the lightyear. This might be useful if that distance was constant, but your MMx simulation shows that it travels more distance one way than the other, so what would be the true time? Maybe you mean the distance traveled in aether, but then there would be no way to detect the true time, and if there is no way for us, my theory shows that there would be no way for atoms either, so this kind of time would be useless too. Besides, if we assimilate time to aging, to me, the fact that one of the twins gets younger means that his time has slowed down. Visibly, I do not understand yet what you exactly mean.

Our inability to measure absolute time doesn't render it useless - it is a key part of the mechanism by which the universe functions and the universe cannot function without it. Our inability to pin it down and point at a clock which ticks out absolute time doesn't make anything useless - it simply means we can't trust any clock to do anything other than measure an apparent time. The universe operates using a time that runs at the same rate everywhere. Computer simulations do the same, even when they pretend to do SR or GR - they are still fully dependent on a Newtonian time ticking away universally because they can't function without it, although they can obfuscate it by repeatedly switching which frame is tied to that Newtonian time.

Quote
I registered six months ago. I can try to register you with your name and give you the password after if you wish.

I'm in now, although I couldn't use my own name because someone has already registered every possible way of writing it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 02:07:45
We are not talking about altitude. We are referencing sea level on earth.

Yes, but a clock at sea level at the equator is moving through space more quickly on average than a clock at sea level at the north pole, so the former should tick more slowly unless there's some complication I don't know about which cancels out the difference, which is why I commented on that - if they do tick at the same rate as each other, there must be some factor that I haven't taken into account and I want to know more about it.

Quote
You can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances.

That is not possible.

Quote
Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?
Einstein and relativity.

Incompetent. No method has been found to measure the speed of light in one direction with anything.

Quote
It does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.

I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.

That's gone too weird for me.

Quote
I am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo.

That wasn't what I called voodoo - it's the bit about an aura which I had an issue with because you're trying to do something that would be ruled out in the same way as aether drag. When space probes move from planet to planet they don't find boundaries between "auras".

Quote
Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.

Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/06/2017 12:03:55
Yes, but a clock at sea level at the equator is moving through space more quickly on average than a clock at sea level at the north pole, so the former should tick more slowly unless there's some complication I don't know about which cancels out the difference, which is why I commented on that - if they do tick at the same rate as each other, there must be some factor that I haven't taken into account and I want to know more about it.

Yes You are not taking into account the bulge at the equator and the indentation at the poles for where sea level resides. There is a SR GR equivalence sea level balances.


QuoteYou can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances.That is not possible.

I would suggest you use the term not probable rather than not possible. Atomic clocks can measure distance on the Earth to prove relativity. Atomic clocks measure rotation of the earths longitude vs. latitude using simultaneity of relativity very well. Atomic clocks accurately measure distances light travels. If c is constant than atomic clocks can measure distance. Einstein thought so. I'm going to side with his understanding.


QuoteQuote from: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 22:50:34Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?Einstein and relativity.Incompetent. No method has been found to measure the speed of light in one direction with anything.

They used atomic clocks in airplanes to prove relativity. The Canadians used a van with 7 atomic clocks to prove relativity driving from NY to SF and registered a 14 ns difference in line with the rotation of the Earth c-v.

QuoteIt does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.That's gone too weird for me.

Being self aware seems weird to me the rest is just mechanics.


QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?

No, but of what is it a contraction? GR has dilation (expansion) SR has a distance change in energy. You contract energy traveling against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks react to velocity of rotation (longitude) but not to Latitude.
Light is independent of the source but latitude is a fixed position North to South for tick rate other than simultaneity of relativity change with distance. The two way distance for east and west exactly correct distance light travels on the Earth. Local is different than non local slightly.
I meant to say the forward and back /2 is the same. One way distance measured by light is not but the physical distance remains the same.

QuoteI am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo.That wasn't what I called voodoo - it's the bit about an aura which I had an issue with because you're trying to do something that would be ruled out in the same way as aether drag. When space probes move from planet to planet they don't find boundaries between "auras".

I use aura to describe dilation threshold of the inverse square of the distance. We view this in galaxies as lensing. Aura is not in the spiritual sense when used by me. There is the energy of space being dilated by mass and we view that threshold between dilated space and space without mass around galaxies. All mass carry's its own dilation of lower energy density. Gravity is the attraction to a lower energy density in your local environment. Your size determines your local environment by the inverse square of the distance you affect.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: puppypower on 20/06/2017 13:05:36
One conceptual problem with explaining and proving relativity with clocks, are clocks do not simulate time in a way that is consistent with the passage of time. Time is mono-directional; always increases to the future. Whereas clocks cycle and repeat. Cycle and repeat is more like a 2-D wave, whereas time moves more like a 1-D line. Clocks add a second dimension to time that is not consistent with the passage of time. Clock time is more consistent with a measure of energy, which is a 2-D wave. Changes in energy, can impact the performance of clocks.

The reason we have clocks, to make us more efficient with our time. It is about regulating our time in a way that allows us to be more efficient with our cultural and individual energy. This makes money and resources. We allot so much energy, for various tasks, over the day. As the clock repeats, we repeat this process. When you go in vacation, and leave the clock at home, energy output is not as repeatable. Time may appear to speed up when you have fun. And you may need a vacation from vacation due to too much energy expended.

The passage of time is closer to the concept of entropy. A system left to its own accord, will increase entropy over time; second law. Like time, entropy does not cycle and repeat. Energy is 2-D; wavelength and frequency and will cycle and repeat.

An example of an entropy clock would be the dead fish clock. This clock moves forward in time and will not cycle since we cannot un-stink the dead fish. We can speed up or slow the dead fish clock, with heat energy or refrigeration. This is another form of energy, that regulates the rate of entropy. I would conclude the mechanics of relativity is energy. SR has kinetic energy, while GR has mass energy. Clock time misrepresents the nature of time and is therefore something else altogether.

As an analogy, say we say have a tradition that says walking can be simulated by swimming. Swimming is a different motion than walking, and therefore swimming does not accurately simulate the mechanics of walking. You need both arm and leg propulsion to swim; 2-D, whereas walking is mostly legs; 1-D.  But since this is the tradition, you need to use that premise and then reason from there when building the robot. If you follow the traditions, to get along, something never makes sense, but one is required to accept it, memorize and repeat. We end up with robots walking while grabbing, air with their arms and curling their spine, which seems unnatural.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 20/06/2017 17:40:16
Davod Cooper #295
Quote
I never actually stopped to work out what the values would be, but those sound right - if you add them together and half the answer, you get one beep every two seconds which is what both rockets should work out that they're hearing on average, tying in neatly with what they will expect to hear if they both assume themselves to be stationary while the other rocket moves past them.

Anaut B leaves A at .866c, performs a more realistic reversal from Bt .5 to 1.5.. and returns at .866c. Inspection reveals units of time detected:
A detects 1 in 3..37, then 1 in .63, an average of 2 in 4.
B detects .63 in 1, then 3.37 in 1, an average of 4 in 2.
The detection rates are reciprocal but not equal.

https://app.box.com/s/wmxpgmv7u36z7epio09k8royqbnxvkbv
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 20/06/2017 17:44:26
Davod Cooper #297

Quote
But I don't agree that time slows down - I only say that moving clocks slow down, and the functionality of anything that can serve as a clock, such as a computer, a cell, an atom, etc. Time itself runs at a constant rate, and we can certainly see that the light in a light clock is not moving through space any slower when the light clock is moving through space - the light continues to race through the space fabric at full speed, and given that that is a fundamental component of the light clock, what sense does it make to say that time has slowed for the clock when that component is not slowed at all? All we have is an apparent slowing of time for objects that move fast through space or sit in a gravity well due to their slowed cycles, but that apparent slowing is all caused by slowed functionality due to greater communication distances or by light being slowed in the presence of a lot of mass

A clock is a process, like biology, or growth rings of a tree,...etc. Inside the light clock, the speed of light relative to the clock is < c and that is by definition 'time'.. If observer  perception (a process) is altered by motion, like the clock, he is not aware of the slowing clock rate, just as his short ruler does not reveal a change in his short spaceship. If all processes slow by the same proportion, the rules of physical behavior remain constant, and apply anywhere for inertial motion. Perception is that of a common time, therefore a universal time is irrelevant. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 20:53:00
Yes You are not taking into account the bulge at the equator and the indentation at the poles for where sea level resides. There is a SR GR equivalence sea level balances.

I did consider that, but thought it unlikely that it should always cancel out the speed effect - having now checked though, I've found lots of stuff stating that it does cancel it out in all cases, so thanks for drawing my attention to this.

I would suggest you use the term not probable rather than not possible.

It is not possible using any method that we currently know of.

Quote
Atomic clocks can measure distance on the Earth to prove relativity. Atomic clocks measure rotation of the earths longitude vs. latitude using simultaneity of relativity very well. Atomic clocks accurately measure distances light travels. If c is constant than atomic clocks can measure distance. Einstein thought so. I'm going to side with his understanding.

If the one-way speed of light could be measured, we would be able to identify a preferred frame of reference.

Quote
They used atomic clocks in airplanes to prove relativity. The Canadians used a van with 7 atomic clocks to prove relativity driving from NY to SF and registered a 14 ns difference in line with the rotation of the Earth c-v.

That is not a one-way measurement the speed of light - proving relativity merely proves that relativity works, but it doesn't mean that it has to be Einstein's relativity as LET makes the same predictions and does not require the speed of light to be the same in all directions relative to any object.

Quote
Quote
Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.
Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?

No, but of what is it a contraction?

If it's 14ft less in one direction, how can the light distances be the same?

Quote
I meant to say the forward and back /2 is the same. One way distance measured by light is not but the physical distance remains the same.

Right, so the average of two distances is the same as itself.

Quote
I use aura to describe dilation threshold of the inverse square of the distance. We view this in galaxies as lensing. Aura is not in the spiritual sense when used by me.

I didn't think you meant it in any spiritual sense, but I couldn't work out what you did mean by it. Thanks for clearing that up. I can't see how that gives you a mechanism to avoid length-contraction.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 21:05:58
Anaut B leaves A at .866c, performs a more realistic reversal from Bt .5 to 1.5.. and returns at .866c. Inspection reveals units of time detected:
A detects 1 in 3..37, then 1 in .63, an average of 2 in 4.
B detects .63 in 1, then 3.37 in 1, an average of 4 in 2.
The detection rates are reciprocal but not equal.

That's a different case - I was dealing with two rockets passing each other at 0.86c relative to each other and not turning round at all. If you average out the beeps they receive from the other rocket over equal parts of the time before and after the point when they pass each other, they both hear one beep every two seconds by their clock.

In the later thought experiment on my relativity page where I have two planets passing each other and two rockets, I don't discuss beeps being sent between them and make no claims about the rate at which any beeps would be detected.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 21:16:26
A clock is a process, like biology, or growth rings of a tree,...etc. Inside the light clock, the speed of light relative to the clock is < c and that is by definition 'time'..

I suspect you meant "=" rather than "<". Whatever the case though, clocks can never all the time that is actually passing - they are measuring some of the passage of time, but they miss some of it, and can miss most or all of it depending on where you place them and how fast they're moving.

Quote
If observer  perception (a process) is altered by motion, like the clock, he is not aware of the slowing clock rate, just as his short ruler does not reveal a change in his short spaceship. If all processes slow by the same proportion, the rules of physical behavior remain constant, and apply anywhere for inertial motion. Perception is that of a common time, therefore a universal time is irrelevant.

Universal time is not only relevant, but essential for the functionality of the universe. The inability to pin it down from within the universe doesn't negate its vital role. You can program a virtual world in which a universal time is key to the running of events but where again it is impossible to pin it down from within the virtual world, and you cannot run the virtual world without that universal time. The universe depends on universal time for the same reason - it cannot function without it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/06/2017 22:00:21
If the one-way speed of light could be measured, we would be able to identify a preferred frame of reference

We can measure the one way speed of light by distance with an atomic clock assuming c is constant. If we do not assume that then we reject relativity. But that does not prove a preferred frame to measure the universe. Just locally on Earth by atomic clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level.


That is not a one-way measurement the speed of light - proving relativity merely proves that relativity works, but it doesn't mean that it has to be Einstein's relativity as LET makes the same predictions and does not require the speed of light to be the same in all directions relative to any object.
But the speed of light is the same in all directions of mass less space. What we measure is an issue with the formulas used. All measurements are indirect measurements based on timed events where time has no fixed value. Time and distance are relative but not fixed. Light is relative at sea level with a fixed tick rate of time and distance for light in the North and South directions on Earth. Not fixed in the East and West directions.

Quote from: David Cooper on Today at 02:07:45QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?No, but of what is it a contraction?If it's 14ft less in one direction, how can the light distances be the same?

I miss spoke and meant the physical distance remained the same but the light distances were not the same. Light is contracted not the physical object. The measurement of light cannot contract a physical object but light itself can be manipulated.
I can't see how that gives you a mechanism to avoid length-contraction.
The premise of contracted was wrong in the first place because of the local North South being a fixed position for the clock tick rate. You may not have understood the full ramifications of that. Perpendicular on Earth could be real. That would negate velocity as a different angle (just on a spinning or non spinning planet of course). Outside of the Earth light clocks might not tick at the same rate.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 20/06/2017 22:32:26
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)
I think I succeeded to insert time dilation in my diagram: whenever contraction occurs, we can consider that time dilation occurs too, which is when acceleration occurs.  While A is accelerated, its components are accelerated millions of times, and at each time, they undergo a small contraction and a small dilation, which are transferred to B progressively by means of its own components' accelerations, so at the end of the acceleration, when B's components make their last acceleration, the dilation A and B suffer is the same, and it thus has no effect on their future motion with regard to one another since we can't detect dilation if we are in the same frame as the source.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 21/06/2017 11:51:37
 Le Repteux,

   Lorentz nor Einstein knew clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. Lorentz based his conclusions on a false belief about the Aether's qualities. A fixed tick rate at sea level creates a fixed position in space where perpendicular and exact light distances for east and west return to the same position in space because the space dilation energy potential is being carried by the Earth. So contraction may not be a factor after all. Consider the implications of tick rate being the same all over the Earth at sea level. North and South have a fixed point for light. If light is waves on energy and energy rotates with the body (fixed tick rate) its just a change in speed to a fixed point in space locally. The fixed point is the latitude. Doppler would be two different energy dilation's. The one in space without mass and the one with mass. The aura of different energy dilations changes the angle of light as a convex lens would with the Doppler. Energy might rotate with planets locally, solar systems locally and galaxies locally by volume. Might be the universe we view is also rotating. That would create a red shift for every galaxy without expansion or a BB.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: puppypower on 21/06/2017 13:19:35
Consider this extrapolated example of Special Relativity. We have two rockets in space approaching each other with relative velocity V. Each rocket will see the other moving at V. Each does their time dilation calculations and clock experiments, based on this velocity.

The first rocket has mass M and the second rocket has mass 2M. Instead of letting the rockets pass, in this experiment, I am going to collide them head on. They are both unmanned so nobody gets hurt.

If the first rocket was moving at velocity V and the second was stationary, the total system kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. If the second rocket was moving and the first was stationary, the total kinetic energy is MV2. If each was moving at a fraction of the total relative velocity, the total system energy will be in the middle somewhere. We cannot tell the system energy from relative velocity. We will not know this energy, until after the collision; based on how the rockets are destroyed. Once we know the energy, our initial assumption of no preferred reference and relative velocity can be misleading. All the calculation might turn out to be an illusion.

The way Special Relativity is usually applied, in examples, specifies velocity, but does not specific the mass. It is usually an unwritten assumption to assume both rockets have the same mass; twins. This special case may work in terns of consistent results, but in hard relative, velocity does not always allow us to do a proper energy balance, since the universe is not made up of twins.

The result is we often add or take away energy. This unknown energy difference, due to the assumption of no preferred reference; no ground state, require and/or causes additional assumption which may not be real. This practical problem with the application of SR, is why Einstein included the relativistic mass term, which is always left out. The relativistic mass define system energy, which then defines the changes in space and time.

I my opinion, dark energy and dark matter is an artifact of not being able to measure relativistic mass, directly. We sort of assume the rocket with M is moving at V. However, other observations seem to imply more energy like rocket 2M is moving. We need to add more energy, so we add dark energy, but we don't change the original first rocket is moving assumption.

I interpret the mechanics of relativity as explaining how it works. In the case of two rockets, once we know the collision, we know the energy and only then absolute velocities appear. Velocity should never come first, or else it can lead to illusions in time and space since you can;t close an energy balance.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 14:54:07
One last attempt to help you see the error in your ways.


A tick of a clock is an ''illusion'', it is an invention of measurement to measure time.  The tick means nothing, it is not important.  If the distance of the tick is constant and the speed of tick is constant, time measured remains constant.  If the distance of the tick is a variate, time measured will be a variate, however it means absolutely nothing.
Why the clock is ticking , time passes at the same rate for the tick that is constant or the tick that is variate.
You are making mountains of mole hills and trying to glamour something into meaning something it is not. 

I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 14:59:08
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)
I think I succeeded to insert time dilation in my diagram: whenever contraction occurs, we can consider that time dilation occurs too, which is when acceleration occurs.  While A is accelerated, its components are accelerated millions of times, and at each time, they undergo a small contraction and a small dilation, which are transferred to B progressively by means of its own components' accelerations, so at the end of the acceleration, when B's components make their last acceleration, the dilation A and B suffer is the same, and it thus has no effect on their future motion with regard to one another since we can't detect dilation if we are in the same frame as the source.

You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 15:03:35
I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.
The way I see it, intelligence would be due to randomness happening in our brains for us to be able to cope with changes happening in our environment, so if I am right, you're completely wrong: we are not relatively stupid, we are absolutely stupid! :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 15:09:06
I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.
The way I see it, intelligence would be due to randomness happening in our brains for us to be able to cope with changes happening in our environment, so if I am right, you're completely wrong: we are not relatively stupid, we are absolutely stupid! :0)

Well either way the final result would be stupid. I do not pretend to know where thoughts come from, my thoughts seemingly just pop into my head by observing things and then asking myself about them things.
The problem when explaining time dilation (timing dilation) in the train carriage, outside of the carriage , light travels normally and synchronous.
So if you can imagine the carriage travelling to the Sun from Earth, no matter what happens inside the carriage the light travelling outside the carriage from the sun to earth and vice versus is always synchronous.
The train carriage is a ''parlour trick'' that as created a subjective ''illusion''.
  If you like the carriage is a light clock travelling within a light clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 15:14:15
You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?
I use the definition of time dilation that says light would take more time between my two atoms if they were moving through aether, of course the atoms need a way to count the tics that I didn't find yet, so I'm still looking for some.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 15:19:37
You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?
I use the definition of time dilation that says light would take more time between my two atoms if they were moving through aether, of course the atoms need a way to count the tics that I didn't find yet, so I'm still looking for some.


That is a good definition but would be still incorrect to say a time dilation, it is the mechanics of timing, time itself has no mechanics as such.

I have drawn a diagram to show timing relativity.

* dx2.jpg (61.22 kB . 1895x916 - viewed 4198 times)



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 15:29:48
I will fix it for you all,

* td.jpg (402.58 kB . 1920x1080 - viewed 4153 times)

That is all ''you'' have to do .  Change the title to timing dilation and that gets rid of most of the  possible relativity arguments.

Einstein used the term time dilation ambiguously, he meant timing.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 15:48:31
I have drawn a diagram to show timing relativity.
Time is made of cyclic motions. We measure long ones out of small ones. Long ones vary more than small ones, so small ones stay precise for a longer period, that's why atomic clocks are more precise. My two atoms use the light they emit to stay synchronized, and they succeed to do so because their components do the same thing. The clock from their components is a billion times more precise than the clock they make, that's how they can keep their inertial motion perfectly constant, at least from our viewpoint. If time dilation happens to one of them, it happens to the other too, so they don't get out of sync because of that, and their motion stays constant. Things need to have a use, and time dilation too. For the moment, I can't see any use for it at the atom's scale, and I am still not sure there is one at our scale. I still resist to the idea that one of the twins gets younger.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 15:56:18
I have drawn a diagram to show timing relativity.
Time is made of cyclic motions. We measure long ones out of small ones. Long ones vary more than small ones, so small ones stay precise for a longer period, that's why atomic clocks are more precise. My two atoms use the light they emit to stay synchronized, and they succeed to do so because their components do the same thing. The clock from their components is a billion times more precise than the clock they make, that's how they can keep their inertial motion perfectly constant, at least from our viewpoint. If time dilation happens to one of them, it happens to the other too, so they don't get out of sync because of that, and their motion stays constant. Things need to have a use, and time dilation too. For the moment, I can't see any use for it at the atom's scale, and I am still not sure there is one at our scale. I still resist to the idea that one of the twins gets younger.


No, time is not made of anything, time is just a word that we use to measure the experience of existence.  Time as a physical thing does not exist, time is the perception and memory of the experience of existing.
What you are referring to is the rate of change in any of the 4 states of matter, the rate of change in entropy. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 16:10:05
I only refer to my diagram. It shows how two atoms would act to stay synchronized while being accelerated. If we try to accelerate the left one, it resists to move to stay synchronized with the right one, and that resistance represents mass. If we stop accelerating it, the doppler effect accumulated between the two atoms produces their constant motion until another acceleration happens, and that constant motion represents inertial motion. Without them emitting light towards one another, they could not stay synchronized and there could be no motion at our scale. They do not use clocks to do so, they use their own light frequency, so they do not have to count the tics. Their frequency is stable because it is made of the frequency of their own components, which is much more stable than theirs.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 16:26:21
I only refer to my diagram. It shows how two atoms would act to stay synchronized while being accelerated. If we try to accelerate the left one, it resists to move to stay synchronized with the right one, and that resistance represents mass. If we stop accelerating it, the doppler effect accumulated between the two atoms produces their constant motion until another acceleration happens, and that constant motion represents inertial motion. Without them emitting light towards one another, they could not stay synchronized and there could be no motion at our scale. They do not use clocks to do so, they use their own light frequency, so they do not have to count the tics.
But that is not how two atoms act to remain synchronised.  Let me explain which is probably a little deeper than you have considered before.

let us have Atom (A) which is going to change in entropy (S) by releasing photon (hf) into the entropy  of space towards Atom (B) which is in a constant state of quantum fluctuation of (S).  When the (hf) arrives at (B) , the (S) of (B) is changed by the (hf).
Vice versus (hf) makes the return trip to (A) . 

To remain synchronous in exchange , dx between (A) and (B) must remain constant and the rate of change of (S) must also remain constant from the surrounding environment.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 16:45:12
You may not have read yet how I describe the motion between my two atoms, so here it is again:

We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce that doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction. Of course motion is a bit more complicated this way, but we can discard the complicated Higgs, and we can study more closely what happens with motion at the micro scale, which could help us to link Relativity theory to Quantum theory.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)

As you can see, I use only immediately observable things, and you use entropy, which is not immediately observable, at least for an atom.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 16:48:56
You may not have read yet how I describe the motion between my two atoms, so here it is again:

We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce that doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction. Of course motion is a bit more complicated this way, but we can discard the complicated Higgs, and we can study more closely what happens with motion at the micro scale, which could help us to link Relativity theory to Quantum theory.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)

As you can see, I use only immediately observable things, and you use entropy, which is not immediately observable, at least for an atom.
  You are going left to right and right to left, that is not even how light behaves or works.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 17:05:57
The two atoms emit their own light at their own frequency, and they have to move so that the light from the other atom looks as if it had the same frequency as theirs. If the left atom has moved towards the right one before its light had the time to reach the right one, that right one will move away from the left one after a while, and it will do so also before its light had the time to reach the left one, so that left one will also move forward after a while. We can very well see how contraction would happen between the two, but it is less clear how dilation would happen. What seems clear to me though is that, even if it happened, it wouldn't affect the contraction or the speed of the system, because it wouldn't affect the synchronization between the two atoms.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/06/2017 17:19:30
The two atoms emit their own light at their own frequency, and they have to move so that the light from the other atom looks as if it had the same frequency as theirs. If the left atom has moved towards the right one before its light had the time to reach the right one, that right one will move away from the left one after a while, and it will do so also before its light had the time to reach the left one, so that left one will also move forward after a while. We can very well see how contraction would happen between the two, but it is less clear how dilation would happen. What seems clear to me though is that, even if it happened, it wouldn't affect the contraction or the speed of the system, because it wouldn't affect the synchronization between the two atoms.
A timing dilation is easy to see and easy to explain, a time dilation however would be a conversation beyond the level of subjective left to right ''parlour tricks'' and involving rates of entropy change.
''They'' need to understand the nature of light, see other thread.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 21/06/2017 18:21:57
Time is made of cyclic motions. We measure long ones out of small ones. Long ones vary more than small ones, so small ones stay precise for a longer period, that's why atomic clocks are more precise. My two atoms use the light they emit to stay synchronized, and they succeed to do so because their components do the same thing. The clock from their components is a billion times more precise than the clock they make, that's how they can keep their inertial motion perfectly constant, at least from our viewpoint. If time dilation happens to one of them, it happens to the other too, so they don't get out of sync because of that, and their motion stays constant. Things need to have a use, and time dilation too. For the moment, I can't see any use for it at the atom's scale, and I am still not sure there is one at our scale. I still resist to the idea that one of the twins gets younger

No onE gets younger. The motion through space slows the aging process more as you approach c. If mass could go c the electron would not cycle. The aging process along with all reactions are based on the electron cycle. Dilation of mass increases the distance between energy  that move the electrons. Electrons have to go further in dilated space. All reactions in the frame slow because of increased distance traveled..
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 19:03:09
To me, slowing the aging process is equivalent to getting younger.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/06/2017 20:16:46
If you buy two spades and use one to double-dig your entire garden once a week for ten years, that spade will be badly worn by the end of that time. You can then get the other one out of a cupboard and it looks brand new, even though it's the same age as the worn one. The slowing of functionality that occurs when things move fast through space simply slows the wear. A human wears over time even if it isn't doing anything, so it's different from the spade which decays minimally when it's doing nothing - the human is actively wearing itself out all the time as its cells operate, but that functionality can be slowed by moving fast through space or sitting deep in a gravity well. The spades are the same age, and twins are the same age, but they are differently worn, leading one of each pair to look newer even though it has been around for the same length of time.

Thebox managed to get one thing right some way up this page - time dilation is badly named because the description really only works for SR where they do voodoo with time, so "timing dilation" is an excellent alternative which could replace the long phrase that I tend to use with LET (the slowing of apparent time). But does that really fix all the problems for him? Does he accept that there is such a thing as timing dilation?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 21/06/2017 21:34:24
He is correct it is only a measurement of looping cycles. Your time is based on c energy.

Dilation is only in mass (GR) not speed (SR). The further down a gravity well the more mass expands when energy expands (dilates).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 22:21:22
 
If you buy two spades and use one to double-dig your entire garden once a week for ten years, that spade will be badly worn by the end of that time.
Your spade deteriorates more because it moves, and inversely, the twin deteriorates less also because it moves, so the comparison doesn't seem to hold. I found a use for contraction that improves my theory, but I didn't find any for dilation yet. If dilation has no use for particles, then why would it have any for us? The Muon experiment is certainly not a use. The GPS would be a use if we could attribute the dilation to motion, but gravitation is on the way. With your simulation, light would travel more distance between my two atoms in motion, so if it would become less intense because of that, then the bonding between the atoms would be affected, but your box mind experiment shows that there would be no way for us to detect that difference, so how could the atoms do so? I still think that if constant motion is really affecting emitted frequencies, in such a way that we can detect them, then that information has to be useful to something else than humans, and I can't see anything else than gravitation as a target.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 22/06/2017 12:22:05
 Le Repteux

   Lets look at observables. Deeper in a gravity hole the more red shifted the light. You already recognize the distance between atoms as the cause. Dilation of space between atoms.

Now that you have the incite you are looking for a cause. The deeper into a gravity well the more distance between atoms. That is counter intuitive to an experienced thinker but observation confirms that to be the case. Many want to compress the mass due to pressure. At this point it becomes conjecture as to the cause.

My thoughts on it are weightlessness in the center of the earth and gravity itself is due to dilation of space energy caused by mass. Space energy carry the photon wave on itself at a propagation c with energy being c as spin (gravitons, photons) being from the same energy but different physical affects. Mass is attracted to the most dilated energy state locally by the inverse square of the distance. The trick is energy c being (gravitons GR, photon wave SR) cause the affects.

Or some other theory might explain motion of relativity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 22/06/2017 15:03:53
In my diagram, inertial mass is due to the left atom being forced to get out of sync with the incoming light, and data shows that there is equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, so I'm looking for a way to incorporate the redshift from gravitation into my mechanism, in such a way that the particles would be forced to move towards one another to avoid being out of sync. That's incidentally what my left particle does, it moves towards the right one to stay on sync with its light, which is actually redshifted since that right one was moving away from the left one when it emitted its light, but that redshift is not produced by dilation, it is pure doppler shift. If dilation was affecting my system of two particles, and if some light was able to escape the system, then non bonded particles would be forced to move towards one another, and that motion could produce gravitation. Gravitation would then be due to the dilation from inertial motion, and the redshift we observe from galaxies might not be due to motion, but to dilation. I'm just beginning to play with dilation and contraction, so it might take a while before I get used to the game. For the moment, I'm just thinking aloud.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 22/06/2017 15:56:14
In my diagram, inertial mass is due to the left atom being forced to get out of sync with the incoming light, and data shows that there is equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, so I'm looking for a way to incorporate the redshift from gravitation into my mechanism, in such a way that the particles would be forced to move towards one another to avoid being out of sync. That's incidentally what my left particle does, it moves towards the right one to stay on sync with its light, which is actually redshifted since that right one was moving away from the left one when it emitted its light, but that redshift is not produced by dilation, it is pure doppler shift. If dilation was affecting my system of two particles, and if some light was able to escape the system, then non bonded particles would be forced to move towards one another, and that motion could produce gravitation. Gravitation would then be due to the dilation from inertial motion, and the redshift we observe from galaxies might not be due to motion, but to dilation. I'm just beginning to play with dilation and contraction, so it might take a while before I get used to the game. For the moment, I'm just thinking aloud

I agree with your thinking. Let me add some potential thoughts but more on the GR side. Consider the lensing in galaxies we observe. I suspect the lensing is dilation of space energy c. Call it anything you like but something physical is being lensed. Its more lensed in the center of the galaxy similar to a planet being more dilated in the gravitational center. Lensing is the physical view of dilation of mass with a threshold to massless space. This dilation is also the inertia carrier. A crash between to physical objects exchange dilation and springs back to its new resting mass.
Back to the original point. We are 75% out from the center of our galaxy and our detector cells are less dilated than the light in the center of galaxies where 75% of the light comes to us. So all galaxies should be red shifted from our position just by GR and not necessary SR expansion of the universe. Red shift is based on dilated energy densities. Energy density works for both SR and GR for reference. Everyone is taught expansion as SR for the cause. No one is thinking for themselves. The head wind is to strong.

Light created in GR dilation has an equivalent in SR speed where light is created
If you take the Earth's surface attraction of 32 ft/s/s and reduce acceleration linearly to the distance to the center of the earth ~8,000 miles for your tick rate in a ship, in space and also in the earths distance from the sun, the clock on the ship would tick at the same rate as a clock in the center of the Earth. If you had a bulb in the front of your space ship the wavelength creates towards the rear of motion would be the same wavelength as the one in the center of the earth. There is the equivalence.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 22/06/2017 18:12:59
David Cooper;
Quote
Imagine two rockets, one of which is stationary and the other which is moving along at the usual 86.6% the speed of light (because that gives us nice round numbers to work with). If we assume that rocket A is stationary and rocket B is moving, then the clocks in rocket B will be running at half the rate of the clocks in rocket A. These clocks could be connected up to radio transmitters to send out a beep for each tick. When the crew of rocket A listen to the beeps coming from rocket B, they may hear the beeps comming in at one beep every two seconds. When the crew of rocket B listen to the beeps coming from rocket A though, they too will hear one beep every two seconds.
You can see that twice as many ticks reach the stationary rocket as the moving one in a given length of time, but you have to remember that time is running at half the normal rate in the moving rocket, so those ticks will be perceived as arriving there at exactly the same rate as in the stationary rocket. Of course, if the moving rocket is travelling in the opposite direction and towards the stationary one, then the ticks arrive at both rockets at a much faster rate, as you can see below, but again when you allow for the slowed time in the moving ship, the perceived tick rates received by each ship are identical,
Whether individual paths or a closed course, the ratio of emitted signals to received signals is what's stated with the drawing, and none are 1:2 or 2:1. It seems like you are using instantaneous light speed. The only thing conserved is the exchange of 4 yr and 2 yr.
Quote
The contradictions in the accounts of events from different frames of reference are still important though, for they demonstrate that not all the accounts of events can be true. There is only one frame of reference which can be tied to the fabric of space, so its accounts are the ones which are true while all the other accounts are false.
The accounts are not false, but valid, since any inertial frame can serve as a reference. I.e. there is no need for an absolute rest frame. That is the 'principle of relativity'.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/06/2017 20:04:33
Your spade deteriorates more because it moves, and inversely, the twin deteriorates less also because it moves, so the comparison doesn't seem to hold.

The comparison is apt because it's about functionality and wear. An unused spade is "newer" in that it has worn less, and the same applies to the twin who has "aged" less. There are differences, of course, but think about this: when the twin moves at 0.866c through space, he hits a lot of electromagnetic radiation with amplified effective frequencies which damage him, so while he returns younger, he may die of cancer soon after due to the damage sustained, so does he really qualify as younger?


Quote
If dilation has no use for particles, then why would it have any for us? The Muon experiment is certainly not a use. The GPS would be a use if we could attribute the dilation to motion, but gravitation is on the way.

There are plenty of things which have no use for us, but that doesn't mean they aren't real, and it also doesn't mean we can ignore the effects they have on us.

Quote
With your simulation, light would travel more distance between my two atoms in motion, so if it would become less intense because of that, then the bonding between the atoms would be affected, but your box mind experiment shows that there would be no way for us to detect that difference, so how could the atoms do so?

Why would they need to detect it? They simply do what they do and are slowed without being able to detect the slowing.

Quote
I still think that if constant motion is really affecting emitted frequencies, in such a way that we can detect them, then that information has to be useful to something else than humans, and I can't see anything else than gravitation as a target.

Nothing is required to be useful to anything until you reach a point where you have an intelligence making things that are designed to be useful to that intelligence in some way.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/06/2017 20:10:49
Hi GoC,

If I'm understanding you to any extent, you appear to have backtracked on length-contraction by using some kind of "aura" effect on the MMX. Is that actually what you're saying, and if so, do you think there would be length-contraction acting on it if the apparatus was in deep space and moving at high speed?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/06/2017 20:21:32
Whether individual paths or a closed course, the ratio of emitted signals to received signals is what's stated with the drawing, and none are 1:2 or 2:1. It seems like you are using instantaneous light speed. The only thing conserved is the exchange of 4 yr and 2 yr.

The 1:2 ratio is for the average, as stated. Each rocket will calculate that the other rocket is emitting one beep every two seconds, and they will measure it as that too if they count the beeps for a length of time while the rockets approach each other and keep counting beeps for the same length of time after they've passed each other.

Quote
The accounts are not false, but valid, since any inertial frame can serve as a reference. I.e. there is no need for an absolute rest frame. That is the 'principle of relativity'.

The accounts contradict each other and cannot all be true, so most of them are false. Our inability to pin down which ones are false and which true does not negate the necessity for one to be true and for any that contradict it to be false. The universe has to run on the basis of one frame and not on an infinite number of them at once where they produce contradictions. If you try to run a simulation without tying everything to a universal time, your simulation will produce event-meshing failures, and the same applies to the running of the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 23/06/2017 00:39:07
Hi GoC,If I'm understanding you to any extent, you appear to have backtracked on length-contraction by using some kind of "aura" effect on the MMX. Is that actually what you're saying, and if so, do you think there would be length-contraction acting on it if the apparatus was in deep space and moving at high speed?

 Highly unlikely. The more likely scenario would be a light clock orientation may affect synchronization between mirrors.
Although if the aura of spacetime energy c rotated with a solar system and then the galaxy we might have the same tick rate at a rotation distance from the sun same as sea level of Earth. Making perpendicular possible and distances traveled forward and back canceling the difference with perpendicular. Try to consider the implications of clocks ticking the same at sea level all over the planet regardless of rotation distance traveled. That may or may not be the same in space. The MMX null result may just be an Earth phenomenon. This should suggest gravity and light are comprised of the same thing (energy). Measured in potential energy dilation.   

Both voyagers increasing signal return past the aura was identified as the voyagers slowing down. More likely the space energy reduced dilation threshold past the solar system increasing the tick rate of their clocks not reducing their velocity. It's all about energy even time is just energy c.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: puppypower on 23/06/2017 13:18:40
The two atoms emit their own light at their own frequency, and they have to move so that the light from the other atom looks as if it had the same frequency as theirs. If the left atom has moved towards the right one before its light had the time to reach the right one, that right one will move away from the left one after a while, and it will do so also before its light had the time to reach the left one, so that left one will also move forward after a while. We can very well see how contraction would happen between the two, but it is less clear how dilation would happen. What seems clear to me though is that, even if it happened, it wouldn't affect the contraction or the speed of the system, because it wouldn't affect the synchronization between the two atoms.


Consider this scenario. We two hydrogen atoms, one is stationary and the other is moving away. The moving hydrogen gives off an energy quantum, that red shifts on its way to the stationary hydrogen due to the Doppler shift. The second hydrogen atom will not be able to parallel the electron transition of the first hydrogen, because the energy quanta has red shifted, and therefore defines lower energy.

The impact of the lower energy photon on the stationary hydrogen is to cause an apparent distance contraction, since the electron has to stay closer to the nucleus. Also the frequency is less since the red shifted energy is at lower frequency, making it look time dilated.

The point I am making is even if only one hydrogen is moving, that motion which impacts the energy output that reaches   the stationary reference. The stationary hydrogen gets lower energy, due to the red shift, and physically reacts in ways that appear that parallel the relativistic time and space change, to create the no preferred reference illusion. Only one reference has real relativity the other is a physical reflection.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 23/06/2017 16:51:55
David Cooper #341

Diverging, A receives 12 months signals from B in 40.4 months.
B receives 7.6 months signals from A in 12 months.
You cannot get a 2:1 or 1:2 ratio from that!
The clock rates are not the same as the doppler rates of perception.
Each account is the perception of the observer, which is correct. Perception is also reality.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/06/2017 18:14:20
Diverging, A receives 12 months signals from B in 40.4 months.
B receives 7.6 months signals from A in 12 months.
You cannot get a 2:1 or 1:2 ratio from that!

You're averaging the wrong things. You provided the following numbers before:-

The drawings correctly show 3.73 between signals when separating and .27 between signals when closing, for both A and B, when using the relativistic Doppler expressions.

If you hear 3.73 beeps in a length of time t (measured by your clock) while your rocket approaches the other rocket (and reaching it at the end of that time), and you then hear 0.27 beeps in the the length of time t as you move away from the other rocket (having passed it), you have heard 4 beeps in time 2t. That is a 2:1 ratio, although it's the opposite way round from the one I'd expected, which means the wording on my page may need to change (assuming that time t represents one beep of the local clock - I haven't got round to doing these calculations myself). The idea I wanted to get across is simply that each rocket will, if it assumes itself to be stationary, calculate that the other rocket's clock is beeping half as often due to its speed of travel, as would be observed from the "God view" of their frame of reference (which they can calculate). The God view isn't directly available to them, of course, so perhaps they really do receive twice as many beeps on average (instead of half as many) even though the other clock is beeping half as often. I'm beginning to see how that might be the case, because as they approach each other, a lot of the beeps from the moving rocket that are reaching the stationary rocket were sent out long before the timing period began, thereby over-representing the rate of their production considerably, and that can't be cancelled out by the massive reduction in received beeps during the second half, so I think you have identified an error on my page which needs to be corrected.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/06/2017 18:26:45
The MMX null result may just be an Earth phenomenon.

And the MM experiment has never been done anywhere other than on the surface of the Earth, so there is actually some sense in your position. Perhaps it could show co-moving, perpendicular light clocks drifting out of sync in space, although relativistic mass and the precise slowing of decay of fast-moving particles suggests that length contraction should happen in all cases.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/06/2017 18:36:15
You may not have read yet how I describe the motion between my two atoms, so here it is again:

We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce that doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction. Of course motion is a bit more complicated this way, but we can discard the complicated Higgs, and we can study more closely what happens with motion at the micro scale, which could help us to link Relativity theory to Quantum theory.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)

As you can see, I use only immediately observable things, and you use entropy, which is not immediately observable, at least for an atom.

You say that the red arrows represent redshifted information, but it looks to me as if that would be blueshifted too because particle A is running into it. You should also consider the case where particle B moves off first (moving away from particle A) to see whether particle A also responds appropriately (and whether you again get length-contraction).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 23/06/2017 20:38:39
Quote from: David
Quote from: Le Repteux
You may not have read yet how I describe the motion between my two atoms, so here it is again:

    We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce that doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction. Of course motion is a bit more complicated this way, but we can discard the complicated Higgs, and we can study more closely what happens with motion at the micro scale, which could help us to link Relativity theory to Quantum theory.
You say that the red arrows represent redshifted information, but it looks to me as if that would be blueshifted too because particle A is running into it.
We have aether in the background, so we can look at the waves as if we were at rest in aether. This way, the light from the right particle is redshifted, and the one from the left particle is bueshifted. Once both lights hit the opposite particles though, they moves to stay on sync with it, so they kind of both gobble the incident doppler effect while both moving in the same direction and at the same speed. Notice that it still takes time before the motion takes place. It takes time during the motion, and it also takes time during the acceleration that precedes the motion, so what the left particle is running into is not the light that is actually emitted by the right one, but the one that is actually producing its motion towards it. My former animation was more explicit about that since we could distinguish the steps from both particles. They are now executed at the same time, but it still takes time before the light from a step reaches the other particle.

Quote
You should also consider the case where particle B moves off first (moving away from particle A) to see whether particle A also responds appropriately (and whether you again get length-contraction).
Nice shot! Molecules from a gaz hit each other, but they can't really pull each other. The best they can do is hit another molecule sideways, which could induce a rotation. If they could then kick one of the atoms a bit away from the other atom, the distance between the components of that atom would contract while it is accelerating away from the other, and the distance between the atoms would expand, which is not easy to figure out. Another way to test my hypothesis would be to accelerate my two particles so that the contraction stops. If we take the system at time t7 and accelerate particle B to the left, its motion should produce blueshift on the light it emits towards A, what should subtract to the redshift (red arrows) it was already producing, and the same interference should happen to the light emitted by A towards B, so the distance between them should expand back to the one they had at T0 if the acceleration is the same. It is not easy to imagine, but the math works, so I guess it is right.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 24/06/2017 19:15:31
Davod Cooper;

Apparently I used the wrong numbers (from memory) in the last post, which doesn't change the issue.

B leaves A at .866, and sends a signal once a sec. The 1st occurs at Bt=1 ( At=2). Transit time for light is 2(.866)/1 = 1.73. A receives 1st at At= 3.73. The doppler ratio is  3.73:1.
A also sends a signal once a sec. The 1st occurs at At=1 (Bt=.5). Transit time for light is .866/(1-.866) = 6.46. B receives signal at At=7.46.  (Bt=3.73). The doppler ratio is the same. Each perceives the same Doppler effect.
The 2:1 ratio would occur if the relative speed was .6c.
Show how you conclude it’s 2:1 or 1:2.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/06/2017 19:11:39
B leaves A at .866, and sends a signal once a sec. The 1st occurs at Bt=1 ( At=2). Transit time for light is 2(.866)/1 = 1.73. A receives 1st at At= 3.73. The doppler ratio is  3.73:1.

That's the same figure you gave for this before, so that's fine.

Quote
A also sends a signal once a sec. The 1st occurs at At=1 (Bt=.5). Transit time for light is .866/(1-.866) = 6.46. B receives signal at At=7.46.  (Bt=3.73). The doppler ratio is the same. Each perceives the same Doppler effect.

That's fine too as they should perceive the same rate of beeps from the other.

Quote
The 2:1 ratio would occur if the relative speed was .6c.
Show how you conclude it’s 2:1 or 1:2.

The 2:1 ratio comes from averaging the number of beeps while the rockets are approaching each other with the number of beeps while they're moving apart (over the same length of time). As I said before: "If you hear 3.73 beeps in a length of time t (measured by your clock) while your rocket approaches the other rocket (and reaching it at the end of that time), and you then hear 0.27 beeps in the the length of time t as you move away from the other rocket (having passed it), you have heard 4 beeps in time 2t. That is a 2:1 ratio, although it's the opposite way round from the one I'd expected..."

(3.73+0.27) / 2 = 2
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 26/06/2017 18:32:28
The 2:1 ratio comes from averaging the number of beeps while the rockets are approaching each other with the number of beeps while they're moving apart (over the same length of time). As I said before: "If you hear 3.73 beeps in a length of time t (measured by your clock) while your rocket approaches the other rocket (and reaching it at the end of that time), and you then hear 0.27 beeps in the the length of time t as you move away from the other rocket (having passed it), you have heard 4 beeps in time 2t. That is a 2:1 ratio, although it's the opposite way round from the one I'd expected..."
Now I see what you are saying.
The calculated avg.freq. for B is 4/2 = 2.
The calculated avg.freq. for A is 2/4 = 1/2.
This verifies the conservation of the number of signals.
These are not perceived real time freq. was my point.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/06/2017 18:19:45
The calculated avg.freq. for B is 4/2 = 2.
The calculated avg.freq. for A is 2/4 = 1/2.
This verifies the conservation of the number of signals.

There must be an error in that or you could tell which rocket's moving - the perceived frequency rate must be the same for both rockets (taking into account the clock of one rocket running half as fast as the other).

Quote
These are not perceived real time freq. was my point.

I only claimed that the average was a 2:1 ratio, although it looks as if I got it the wrong way round because I was thinking about the calculated ratio once the real rate of beeps is calculated from the number received (to cancel out the Doppler shift).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 28/06/2017 13:34:12
There must be an error in that or you could tell which rocket's moving - the perceived frequency rate must be the same for both rockets (taking into account the clock of one rocket running half as fast as the other).

There is a way to know which ship is moving faster than the other. You each send a signal to the other at one signal per your second. Then you send a radar type signal to bounce back to you. In this way you can subtract one signal from the other to get the speed of the other vs. your speed relative when you compare distance between returned signals vs. your second. This would only work when you are on the same line. Each of you would measure a difference between the sent signal and the returned signal frequency between beeps. Then you compare your red and blue shifts in your signals. It should be the same as the gradient red shift in gravity GR measured in momentum. But of course it would not be momentum of light changing. Light does not change momentum down a gravity well either. Its just the dilation of energy change.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/06/2017 20:31:15
There is a way to know which ship is moving faster than the other. You each send a signal to the other at one signal per your second. Then you send a radar type signal to bounce back to you. In this way you can subtract one signal from the other to get the speed of the other vs. your speed relative when you compare distance between returned signals vs. your second. This would only work when you are on the same line. Each of you would measure a difference between the sent signal and the returned signal frequency between beeps. Then you compare your red and blue shifts in your signals...

You obviously haven't checked out your claim by doing the maths. If you had, you'd know that it won't work.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 29/06/2017 22:46:49
Hi David,

I went on a french scientific forum this afternoon, and I asked why they didn't use simulations like yours to convince people. While answering questions, I realized that you did not put enough importance on the reason why it is always the twin that turns around that ages less. When it is him that is at rest and the earth traveling, you say that he will have to travel faster to catch up with the earth at the end, thus you change reference frames without saying why. I suspect it is because we can't accelerate without knowing that we did, so the twin on the earth cannot say he did, but the people at the forum will probably tell me that acceleration is not part of SR, so what am I going to tell them? That they were wrong?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 30/06/2017 12:38:06
There is a way to know which ship is moving faster than the other. You each send a signal to the other at one signal per your second. Then you send a radar type signal to bounce back to you. In this way you can subtract one signal from the other to get the speed of the other vs. your speed relative when you compare distance between returned signals vs. your second. This would only work when you are on the same line. Each of you would measure a difference between the sent signal and the returned signal frequency between beeps. Then you compare your red and blue shifts in your signals...

You obviously haven't checked out your claim by doing the maths. If you had, you'd know that it won't work.

You are correct. I did not mean to send that thought after I wrote it. When I closed the screen it sent. The energy left by c is counteracted by kinetic energy (speed) in the signal auto correcting duration between ticks. You never know which ship is causing the duration of the received signal. This is also why measured speed of light is the same in every frame.

Why do the clocks tick at the same rate (electron cycle) at sea level? How do they know to stay in sync? Some time in the future science will understand there is a control mechanism. I come from an analytical chemistry background and realize there is always a physical reason for a physical condition. It can be no different for physics. The clock's electron cycle is controlled by an outside force (energy from space) or it is a coincidence that happens on all planets. Chose your side carefully if you want the best understanding. Coincidence is a choice but it is a coincidence at every level the sea would occupy on any planet. Energy is of space and not mass. E=c and in the presence of mass E= c * c moving electrons. Electrons do not move themselves. Unless you believe in magic, you have to come to the same conclusion. Mass has entropy. Energy may have entropy also but it is relative to chemical reactions. We could not perceive energy slowing down since we are part of the measurement system. If energy was stored in atoms they would not change in concert with other atoms electrons during frame changes. The standard model of space being a void is not logical to clocks changing in concert.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 30/06/2017 18:16:06
Hi Raymond,

I went on a french scientific forum this afternoon,...

That might be exactly what I need to improve my French scientific vocabulary. Ou est-ce que je peux le trouver?

Quote
... and I asked why they didn't use simulations like yours to convince people. While answering questions, I realized that you did not put enough importance on the reason why it is always the twin that turns around that ages less. When it is him that is at rest and the earth traveling, you say that he will have to travel faster to catch up with the earth at the end, thus you change reference frames without saying why. I suspect it is because we can't accelerate without knowing that we did, so the twin on the earth cannot say he did, but the people at the forum will probably tell me that acceleration is not part of SR, so what am I going to tell them? That they were wrong?

The first thing you need to point out is that I don't change frame when the rocket accelerates. (1) If the planet's stationary throughout, the rocket accelerates, moves away from it, decelerates to halt, accelerates in the opposite direction to the original acceleration, moves back to the planet, then decelerates to a halt. At no point in that have we changed the frame we're using for our analysis of the events. (2) If the planet's moving throughout, the rocket decelerates to a halt while the planet continues to move through the frame of reference in which the rocket is now stationary, then the rocket accelerates for twice as long as its original deceleration to set off in pursuit of the planet, closes in on it (moving at high speed through our chosen frame of reference), then decelerates so that it can land on the planet. Again, at no point in this have we changed the frame used for the analysis of events.

There are a lot of people out there who misunderstand how acceleration relates to SR, but the simple way to illustrate its role is to introduce more space ships which don't accelerate at any point during the analysis. In case (2), for example, when the rocket decelerates at the start, it could decelerate to sit alongside a space ship which happens to be there already (sitting stationary in the frame used for the analysis), and when the rocket then accelerates hard to chase after the planet, another spaceship can happen to come along such that it moves alongside the rocket throughout that part of the journey. The clock in the rocket must tick at the same rate as the clock in any space ship that's co-moving with it at the time. This shows us that the mechanism used to control the clocks and determine how quickly they tick relative to each other is set purely by the speed at which they move through space - there is no fancy voodoo done by the accelerations other than to change the speed at which a clock is moving through space.

Also, if anyone gets obsessed with the length of time taken by the accelerations and imagines that this somehow invalidates the thought experiment, that can be dealt with as follows. Accelerations take time to happen, so there will be short stretches of time when the rocket's clock is not ticking at any of the fixed rates used in our calculations, but if we make the accelerations quicker and quicker or make the distances travelled longer and longer, we can make these complications increasingly insignificant - we can see how they get closer and closer to being instantaneous accelerations, and this gives us full justification for using instantaneous accelerations in our thought experiments - while they may be impossible in reality, we can see that the time the rocket spends accelerating can be made shorter and shorter and that the deviation this would give us from the numbers we get out of our thought experiments tends towards zero.

Be aware that it's possible (in thought experiments) to accelerate a rocket in such a way that the acceleration is not felt by the rocket - you can hold a planet near a stationary rocket to accelerate it and move the planet along ahead of it at faster and faster speed as the rocket speeds up, then whip the planet away and leave the rocket moving at high speed through space with its clock running slow and the people inside it having no idea that they're no longer stationary (unless they were watching what happened).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 30/06/2017 18:31:01
Why do the clocks tick at the same rate (electron cycle) at sea level? How do they know to stay in sync?

The maths of relativity is full of amazing coincidences, so this is just one more of them. In a way though, none of them are coincidences as there is simply no alternative way for things to be without breaking mathematics. Thanks again for pointing this one out to me though, because I'd never heard of it before.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 30/06/2017 19:03:27
(2) If the planet's moving throughout, the rocket decelerates to a halt while the planet continues to move through the frame of reference in which the rocket is now stationary, then the rocket accelerates for twice as long as its original deceleration to set off in pursuit of the planet, closes in on it (moving at high speed through our chosen frame of reference), then decelerates so that it can land on the planet. Again, at no point in this have we changed the frame used for the analysis of events.
To me, taking the ship as a reference frame would mean that it is the planet that would make the whole roundtrip: it would thus first accelerate away from the ship, then it would decelerate, accelerate back to the ship, and decelerate to land it. It is easier to figure it out with two ships though, and this way, I don't see how we could get out of it without knowing which one has accelerated, and my diagram about the distance between two atoms being contracted during acceleration shows how it would work. Of course, it doesn't fit with relativity, so I'm probably going to be moderated on the forum if I use that kind of argument, but I think it fits with LET. If it doesn't then we may need a new theory.

Here is the link to the topic I opened on the french forum:
forums.futura-sciences.com/physique/794268-outil-comprendre-relativite.html

I'm french, so I often use this translator for the words I'm not used to:
wordreference.com/enfr/
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 30/06/2017 22:52:01
Here is the link to the topic I opened on the french forum:
forums.futura-sciences.com/physique/794268-outil-comprendre-relativite.html

Thanks - I've read the first page of it now and have learned the word "cible" (target).

Here's a comment from Deedee that's worth thinking about:-

Quote
L'aberration n'a pas besoin de la contraction des longueurs.

That is true, particularly when the laser is aligned at 90 degrees to its direction of travel, but the direction the light actually goes in is certainly affected by length-contraction if the laser is aligned at other angles, so if you don't take length contraction into account, you will often fail to predict those angles of travel correctly. If you want to spell that out to him, point out that a circular ring of lasers pointing outwards provides a good understanding of the headlights effect - you need to length-contract that ring into an ellipse, then imagine it running along and trace out the path the light actually takes through space as it moves through each laser at the speed c in the frame of reference you're using (a frame through which the ring of lasers is moving).

Quote
To me, taking the ship as a reference frame would mean that it is the planet that would make the whole roundtrip: it would thus first accelerate away from the ship, then it would decelerate, accelerate back to the ship, and decelerate to land it. It is easier to figure it out with two ships though, and this way, I don't see how we could get out of it without knowing which one has accelerated, and my diagram about the distance between two atoms being contracted during acceleration shows how it would work. Of course, it doesn't fit with relativity, so I'm probably going to be moderated on the forum if I use that kind of argument, but I think it fits with LET. If it doesn't then we may need a new theory.

Although it's possible, it is best to avoid using frames of reference that require you to change frame along the way, so I would never tie a frame (used for analysing events) to any item that accelerates in any way that involves accelerating the frame with it. In your description, you have the planet "accelerating" away from the ship, but everyone involved knows that the ship is the one accelerating rather than the planet, so it's just adding a host of unnecessary complexities into the analysis. In LET it also serves no purpose to explore accelerating frames as they cannot be the preferred frame, so it's really a game best left to SR fans.

Here's a quote from you:-

Quote
En d'autres termes, même si on ne peut pas savoir lequel des deux jumeaux se déplace une fois que l'un d'eux a accéléré, on sait lequel des deux a accéléré, et c'est suffisant pour savoir que son horloge s'est contractée, donc que la lumière a pris plus de temps entre les miroirs pour lui que pour celui resté à terre.

Remember that the one that's felt an acceleration may actually have decelerated, so his/her clock might speed up as a result rather than running slower. All we can know is that on average for the two legs of the rocket's trip, its clocks will run slow.

(I've just learned another good word; déceler = detect.)

I think my computer's about to freeze, so I'll post this now.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 30/06/2017 23:17:07
Quote
Ne mélangeons pas tout. Il y a simulation et représentation, ce n'est pas la meme chose. Une simulation (dans le "vrai" sens du terme), consiste à résoudre des équations, représentatives de modèles. Si vous ne comprennez pas les modèles à l'origine des simulations, vous ne comprendrez pas plus les simulations elles-memes.

The interactive diagrams on my page are simulations directly driven by the maths (using JavaScript to move objects about by calculating their now positions on each move). You can see that clearly in the interactive diagram showing the two planets and two rockets because only a simulation can provide that degree of control as you change frame.

Quote
A se demander si ce n'est pas de l'auto-promotion...

So he now thinks you wrote my page. By the way, I noticed in your thread at anti-rel that someone showed you a diagram many months ago which showed something just like my moving laser with the light pulse moving down through through it vertically while actually tracing out a line down the screen at an angle. It shows how easy it is to see things and not take them in.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/07/2017 15:14:24
Quote from: David
Although it's possible, it is best to avoid using frames of reference that require you to change frame along the way, so I would never tie a frame (used for analyzing events) to any item that accelerates in any way that involves accelerating the frame with it. In your description, you have the planet "accelerating" away from the ship, but everyone involved knows that the ship is the one accelerating rather than the planet, so it's just adding a host of unnecessary complexities into the analysis. In LET it also serves no purpose to explore accelerating frames as they cannot be the preferred frame, so it's really a game best left to SR fans.
I'm new to relativity thinking, a few days ago I was totally anti, so I may be wrong, but I still see no way to tell which twin is getting younger than to know which one has accelerated.

Quote
Remember that the one that's felt an acceleration may actually have decelerated, so his/her clock might speed up as a result rather than running slower. All we can know is that on average for the two legs of the rocket's trip, its clocks will run slow.
That's what I was saying about the contraction between my two atoms a few posts away: if we decelerate the right atom, the contraction will reverse, so the dilation too.

Quote
The interactive diagrams on my page are simulations directly driven by the maths (using JavaScript to move objects about by calculating their now positions on each move). You can see that clearly in the interactive diagram showing the two planets and two rockets because only a simulation can provide that degree of control as you change frame.
I know, and I was about to tell him, but I think he didn't even look at it, so I guess he is only wanting me to stop.

Quote
By the way, I noticed in your thread at anti-rel that someone showed you a diagram many months ago which showed something just like my moving laser with the light pulse moving down through it vertically while actually tracing out a line down the screen at an angle. It shows how easy it is to see things and not take them in.
It's Cryptic, he is really good at it, but he did not use a laser as a source, so I couldn't see how the photon had to travel inside it, and I did not have you to insist on that point either, so I missed it. It takes a lot of chance to change ideas, and a lot of chance too to develop good ones. I'm having a hard time to convince the guys at the french forum to use that kind of tool to teach relativity, and with Obi watching me, I'm afraid I won't last long. No luck, it's the only scientific french forum I know, and it is exclusively mainstream. There is many english ones, and some of them let us expose our divergences, but I'm not so at ease with english.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 01/07/2017 16:25:03
There is many english ones, and some of them let us expose our divergences, but I'm not so at ease with english.

Nether am I and its my native language.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 01/07/2017 20:12:48
David Cooper #352

In the case of A and B moving with a constant relative speed v, the initial conditions are the same for each, the observations are reciprocal. Increased freq (.27) when approaching and decreasing freq when separating (3.73).
When B departs, them returns to A, a closed course, the descriptions are NOT  symmetrical, but still reciprocal, thus the two ratios, 2:1 and 1:2.
In the 'twin' case, there can be an age difference, just as there is in this example. 
A can assume a pseudo rest frame with B changing course, or,
B can assume a pseudo rest frame with A changing course due to a temporary g-field
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/07/2017 20:23:01
To me, contraction appears at the beginning of acceleration, and it is due to acceleration, not speed. That's what the diagram with my two atoms means. When the left atom is accelerated, it moves before the right atom knows about that, so the distance between the two atoms automatically contracts, and the time light takes to travel between them increases. With that principle in hand, no need to ask which twin is getting younger, it is always the one that has accelerated.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/07/2017 23:40:06
I'm new to relativity thinking, a few days ago I was totally anti, so I may be wrong, but I still see no way to tell which twin is getting younger than to know which one has accelerated.

With the twins case, it is indeed the one that's accelerated that measures less time passing for him/her, but during one leg of the trip it may be the one that's experienced the accelerations which has the fastest running clock (in which case his/her clock will be the slowest running clock during the other leg of the trip).

Quote
That's what I was saying about the contraction between my two atoms a few posts away: if we decelerate the right atom, the contraction will reverse, so the dilation too.

What bothers me about what you're doing with the atoms is that you may just be producing a temporary contraction caused by the way you're accelerating it and that the contraction will not have anything to do with the length-contraction of relativity. I asked what would happen if you accelerated the leading atom instead of the trailing one and that appeared to reveal that you haven't bound the atoms together in any way. You should be able to accelerate either atom and have it move the other one with it, and the same length-contraction should then be seen on the molecule afterwards regardless of which one you put the energy into.

Quote
It's Cryptic, he is really good at it, but he did not use a laser as a source, so I couldn't see how the photon had to travel inside it, and I did not have you to insist on that point either, so I missed it.

Having just looked at it again, I was wrong about that animation - he (JammyTown) does use a laser, but he doesn't show the light pulse moving down through it because the animation starts with the light already on the point of leaving it.

Quote
I'm having a hard time to convince the guys at the french forum to use that kind of tool to teach relativity

But they don't want to use such diagrams precisely because they're keen to avoid introducing anyone to LET - they simply deny the need for a preferred frame and see no need of diagrams showing light taking longer to move through the (contracted) MMX apparatus as they can simply switch to the frame in which it is stationary and use that on the basis that that's what's "really" happening (completely ignoring the fact that they've just changed the speed of light relative to the apparatus and that their new account is in direct conflict with that of the previous frame they were using).

Quote
No luck, it's the only scientific french forum I know, and it is exclusively mainstream.

It has its uses - I've been in need of this kind of French reading matter for a long time, but I don't think my French will be good enough to post anything there for a long time.

To me, contraction appears at the beginning of acceleration, and it is due to acceleration, not speed.

But that contraction caused by acceleration is not the length-contraction of relativity. You only find the length-contraction of relativity after the compression or stretching forces of acceleration have gone and the material has settled back into an unstressed shape.

Quote
With that principle in hand, no need to ask which twin is getting younger, it is always the one that has accelerated.

That only holds for the average of the whole time between them separating and reuniting. If you take a pair of twins, send one away from the other and never reunite them, you can't know which one's clock is running slower because you don't know if the acceleration really accelerated a twin or decelerated him/her.

(Words learned today: pioche = pickaxe; s'écoule = flows.)

Quote
Je peux lui demander de nous montrer son logiciel si tu veux l'analyser!

The JavaScript source code is all there in the page source - anyone can view it by looking for the right menu option in their browser.

Quote
l'interprétation de Lorentz de la relativité restreinte empêche de poursuivre vers la relativité générale. Elle n'est pas focalisée sur les "bons" concepts.

LET has been extended to cover all the same ground as GR but with different explanations. The Conspiracy of Light website (linked to from my relativity page) is a good starting point for seeing what's been done with it.

Quote
Mais vous pouvez ne pas y croire, c'est votre problème. Par contre si vous essayez de vendre aux lecteurs que la LET est une bonne voie vers l'abord de la RG, nous manifesterons notre désaccord et demanderons des justifications solides.

The maths is the same for both LET and GR, so it really shouldn't be any disadvantage to approach it from an LET starting point, but I can't see any reason why people shouldn't all be introduced to both LET and SR at the start, and then when they move on to GR they should again be looking at the two rival interpretations rather than just being presented with a biased view of everything.

Quote
Et demande à Cooper (à moins qu'il veuille venir ici l'expliquer) comment il fait pour définir que "le (un) temps s'écoule plus lentement" ( donc qu'une horloge ralentit)?

I haven't managed to find anything on my page that that might be a translation of, so if it's supposed to be something I said, I'd need to know what the context is. In LET, time never flows more slowly (though clocks run slow because they can't record all the time that's passing), and in SR time shouldn't be able to flow more slowly either (although that results in event-meshing failures if that rule is actually applied consistently).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/07/2017 23:52:48
When B departs, them returns to A, a closed course, the descriptions are NOT  symmetrical, but still reciprocal, thus the two ratios, 2:1 and 1:2.

Correct. When I made the claim about it being the same for both rockets, that was a case where the rockets were moving passing each other and never being reunited. I didn't make that claim about the twins scenario where they are reunited and where one measures twice as much time passing as the other.

Quote
In the 'twin' case, there can be an age difference, just as there is in this example. 
A can assume a pseudo rest frame with B changing course, or,
B can assume a pseudo rest frame with A changing course due to a temporary g-field

For B to measure more time passing than A does, you'd need to apply a temporary g-field to B as well so that when it does it's acceleration to "stop and move back the other way" it is actually maintaining its speed in the same direction throughout (merely firing its engines to cancel out the force from the temporary  g-field). That would enable one twin to feel no acceleration at all while the other twin feels a lot of acceleration and yet ends up looking much older than the twin who felt no acceleration.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/07/2017 15:57:50
With the twins case, it is indeed the one that's accelerated that measures less time passing for him/her, but during one leg of the trip it may be the one that's experienced the accelerations which has the fastest running clock (in which case his/her clock will be the slowest running clock during the other leg of the trip).
With acceleration causing motion, it is impossible that the twin who is accelerating away from the other is not the one that is moving faster in that direction. So even if I'm wrong about acceleration causing contraction, we could still consider acceleration as a way to know which one is moving away, but you are right, if both twins were already moving in a certain direction with regard to aether before the acceleration, the one that accelerates in the other direction may well be getting older for a while, but as you describe, he would still have to run faster getting back, so he would still be getting younger overall. It works very well, but we absolutely have to know which twin has accelerated, and the relativists cannot take acceleration into account since it would contradict the relativity principle. Even Galileo could have thought about that. With modern accelerometers, we can detect very small accelerations, and as my small steps show, matter is probably able to register them with an absolute precision if light is absolutely precise and if inertial motion depends on its precision.

Quote
What bothers me about what you're doing with the atoms is that you may just be producing a temporary contraction caused by the way you're accelerating it and that the contraction will not have anything to do with the length-contraction of relativity. I asked what would happen if you accelerated the leading atom instead of the trailing one and that appeared to reveal that you haven't bound the atoms together in any way. You should be able to accelerate either atom and have it move the other one with it, and the same length-contraction should then be seen on the molecule afterwards regardless of which one you put the energy into.
If we could pull on the right atom, it would of course get away from the left one before the information reaches that left one, so the distance between them would lengthen during the acceleration instead of getting contracted, but for time to get dilated, they would have to be traveling with regard to aether, and we cannot know about that, so it seams that my idea about length contraction being due to acceleration doesn't help.

Quote
Having just looked at it again, I was wrong about that animation - he (JammyTown) does use a laser, but he doesn't show the light pulse moving down through it because the animation starts with the light already on the point of leaving it.
I was talking about Kryptic's simulation here (http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61995#p61995) (anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61995#p61995). Do you have a link for Jammy Town's one?

Quote from: David
Quote
With that principle in hand, no need to ask which twin is getting younger, it is always the one that has accelerated.
That only holds for the average of the whole time between them separating and reuniting. If you take a pair of twins, send one away from the other and never reunite them, you can't know which one's clock is running slower because you don't know if the acceleration really accelerated a twin or decelerated him/her.
Exactly. So, where do we start the sit-in? Time Square, La Bastille, Tian'anmen? :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 03/07/2017 18:16:49
When you bring them back together one will have less accumulated time than the other. That's the one with more velocity. That's if you synchronize your clocks before you start. Its not the acceleration but the energy portion of c being used for velocity through space. We are accelerated to the center of the Earth but surface clocks run faster than clocks would in the center of the Earth. How can electrons speed up in deceleration if atoms expand after being contracted? Your logic is backwards to your distance increase for the electron travel distance and tick rate. Science will eventually come to the conclusion c is the Aether matrix and light is a wave on that matrix. The matrix is energy c. Its not the electrons that are fundamental energy. Fundamental energy c is of space not mass. Fundamental energy allows mass to move. Without it everything would be frozen in position. No gravity, no magnetism, no strong or weak force and no time!!!! Time is energy c.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 03/07/2017 18:18:29
With acceleration causing motion, it is impossible that the twin who is accelerating away from the other is not the one that is moving faster in that direction. So even if I'm wrong about acceleration causing contraction, we could still consider acceleration as a way to know which one is moving away, but you are right, if both twins were already moving in a certain direction with regard to aether before the acceleration, the one that accelerates in the other direction may well be getting older for a while, but as you describe, he would still have to run faster getting back, so he would still be getting younger overall. It works very well, but we absolutely have to know which twin has accelerated, and the relativists cannot take acceleration into account since it would contradict the relativity principle.
Here is a paper that should explain the 'twin' scenario.If you need clarification on anything, ask.
https://app.box.com/s/m3708rlqj9kg2e6hjdinu2xx06ldhp1h
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 03/07/2017 18:30:34
For B to measure more time passing than A does, you'd need to apply a temporary g-field to B as well so that when it does it's acceleration to "stop and move back the other way" it is actually maintaining its speed in the same direction throughout (merely firing its engines to cancel out the force from the temporary  g-field). That would enable one twin to feel no acceleration at all while the other twin feels a lot of acceleration and yet ends up looking much older than the twin who felt no acceleration.
I'm only showing the B perception of the 4 yr/2 yr scenario. B changes speed which he interprets as a g-field, which explains A's curving course, his perception.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/07/2017 21:22:43
With acceleration causing motion, it is impossible that the twin who is accelerating away from the other is not the one that is moving faster in that direction.

Do you really mean "impossible" there or did you intend to say "possible"?

Quote
So even if I'm wrong about acceleration causing contraction, we could still consider acceleration as a way to know which one is moving away, but you are right, if both twins were already moving in a certain direction with regard to aether before the acceleration, the one that accelerates in the other direction may well be getting older for a while, but as you describe, he would still have to run faster getting back, so he would still be getting younger overall.

Assuming that the accelerations haven't been hidden in some way by temporarily tampering with g-fields, the twin who feels a series of accelerations will measure less time passing by the end of the round trip than the twin whose speed through space never changed. There is no disagreement between LET and SR on this point.

Quote
It works very well, but we absolutely have to know which twin has accelerated, and the relativists cannot take acceleration into account since it would contradict the relativity principle.

No - the accelerations aren't a problem for SR. The only conflict is in the interpretation of events, because SR considers all accounts of events (based on different frames of analysis) to be equally valid whereas LET says that most of the accounts must be wrong because they contradict each other (by such means as having the same acceleration make a clock run both slower and faster than it was ticking before). This dogma in SR about there being no preferred frame flies in the face of logic, but we have generations of physicists who simply reject reason on this point while claiming that they are not rejecting it (in the same way religious people do while breaking the rules of reason), and there appears to be no way to get them to see sense, no matter how clearly you spell things out for them.

Quote
I was talking about Kryptic's simulation here (http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61995#p61995) (anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61995#p61995). Do you have a link for Jammy Town's one?

Look for the diagrams (which have a black background) 2/3 of the way down the first page of that thread.

Quote
So, where do we start the sit-in? Time Square, La bastille, Tian'anmen? :0)

There is nothing that can be done until AGI takes over as the authority. My proof that Spacetime models don't work without having Newtonian time added to them has been online for many years now, and the interactive exam was added to it a couple of years ago to try to force people who made nebulous objections to it to point to the place where they imagine that the proof must have a fault in it. They now just go silent instead and slip away while pretending they haven't looked.

Quote from a modérateur:-

Quote
Bonjour,
bon, on va faire simple : la théorie de l'ether a été réfutée il y a plusieurs décennies déjà.

He's now pushing a standard falsehood, and that's what happens with this subject on most science forums because they are usually run by people who have learned about relativity from biased sources which filled their heads with propaganda about the aether being disproven. There is a rational explanation for this happening though, because a number of experiments which claimed to measure the one-way speed of light superficially appeared to show that the speed of light across any object in any direction is always c, but when they were debunked (and every single one has been debunked because they've made fundamental errors such as failing to take into account Doppler shifts between points on moving and rotating turntables or the twisting of rotating objects that are moving fast through space), the false claims have been left in place in the literature without any corrections or retractions being added, and the same debunked stuff appears all over the Web too because so few people realise that it's been debunked, so they keep putting it up there.

Quote
Et conformément à la charte du forum :

6. Ayez une démarche scientifique. Ce forum n'est pas un lieu de discussion sur de soi-disant phénomènes paranormaux ou "sciences" parallèles. Toutes idées ou raisonnements (aussi géniaux soient ils) doivent reposer sur des faits scientifiquement établis et non sur de vagues suppositions personnelles, basées sur d'intimes convictions. [...] D'autre part la seule vocation de Futura-Sciences étant la vulgarisation scientifique de bon niveau ce n'est pas le lieu pour des questionnements ou remises en cause de théories admises dont seuls des spécialistes ont les compétences pour débattre, ni pour l'exposé de théories strictement personnelles. Une telle démarche aurait sa place uniquement dans un séminaire ou un congrès scientifique.
Par conséquent, ether = pas ici.

Passing the buck - "it is for experts only to discuss such matters, so we are entitled to go on making false claims here and to ban anyone from challenging our false claims".

It really isn't worth wasting any more time on them. It's just the world in microcosm - you set a proof before people's eyes and they reject it because they are incapable of reasoning correctly and they don't respect correct reasoning if it generates conclusions that go against the beliefs of the clergy. They are followers who only ever follow authority - they simply do not trust their own minds, and that's really sad.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/07/2017 21:32:35
For B to measure more time passing than A does, you'd need to apply a temporary g-field to B as well so that when it does it's acceleration to "stop and move back the other way" it is actually maintaining its speed in the same direction throughout (merely firing its engines to cancel out the force from the temporary  g-field). That would enable one twin to feel no acceleration at all while the other twin feels a lot of acceleration and yet ends up looking much older than the twin who felt no acceleration.
I'm only showing the B perception of the 4 yr/2 yr scenario. B changes speed which he interprets as a g-field, which explains A's curving course, his perception.

I thought when you said "B can assume a pseudo rest frame with A changing course due to a temporary g-field" that you were applying the temporary g-field to A to make it accelerate without knowing it was being accelerated, but I see now that you meant it should be applied to B (and I should have realised that from the word "pseudo").
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 04/07/2017 12:52:02

   Both A and B are going 0.87c. B decelerates increasing the speed of his clock. B will hit a position of maximum tick rate and continue to blow past that point slowing his clock. Can you consider the maximum tick rate position in space the position of rest? No, there is no rest position just because the electrons are cycling their fastest. That is just a position of maximum fundamental energy and minimum kinetic energy.

If you were in a ship that could go faster than light in sub light speed as you accelerated and had a magic telescope to look at Earth the rotation rate would appear to slow around the sun. At the speed of light earth would stop but no light could reach you to view the image. Faster than light you could turn around 180 degrees and watch the Earth reverse direction. Is that time travel? No!!! Just a visual recording.

Both Voyagers left the solar system and appeared to slow down. The reason they appeared to slow down was the tick rate duration decreased. Less time on Earth clocks between beeps suggesting a slow down. What they refuse to consider is the aura of dilation in our solar system. They both left our solar system aura into a more dense energy state of space increasing the clocks tick rate on board the voyagers. Simple relativity but it violates the standard model of space being empty. LET was proven by the voyagers. But the design of LET has to be fundamental Energy of time being of space and not mass.

If we sent a probe with only a clock on board to follow the north star the probe would increase its tick rate much less of a distance since the aura is a rotating disk.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 04/07/2017 19:12:48
With acceleration causing motion, it is impossible that the twin who is accelerating away from the other is not the one that is moving faster in that direction.
Do you really mean "impossible" there or did you intend to say "possible"?
Sorry, I'm still making mistakes. I should always add "with regard to ether" after the word "speed", at least in my mind.

Quote from: David
Quote
So even if I'm wrong about acceleration causing contraction, we could still consider acceleration as a way to know which one is moving away, but you are right, if both twins were already moving in a certain direction with regard to aether before the acceleration, the one that accelerates in the other direction may well be getting older for a while, but as you describe, he would still have to run faster getting back, so he would still be getting younger overall.
Assuming that the accelerations haven't been hidden in some way by temporarily tampering with g-fields, the twin who feels a series of accelerations will measure less time passing by the end of the round trip than the twin whose speed through space never changed. There is no disagreement between LET and SR on this point.
Do you mean that relativists have the right logical answer about the Twins' paradox and that I simply didn't get it? On the wiki page about that paradox, many interpretations effectively talk about acceleration, but it is always to determine if acceleration itself affects the clocks. The interpretation that resembles the most the idea that acceleration tells us which twin is traveling is the one that says one of the twins changes reference frames, so if I understand well, for those relativists, that twin is getting younger at the same rate both ways, whereas for LET, the twin might be getting older one way, and a lot younger the other way. To me, that SR interpretation is simply illogical. They present the muon experiment as a proof that SR works, while with LET, some of those muons could very well be traveling slower than the earth with regard to ether, thus they could be having a shorter life than the laboratory ones. At one place, they say: «Car objectivement, seul le jumeau voyageur peut mesurer les effets de l'inertie et nous savons donc que le chemin constitué de deux segments est forcément celui du jumeau voyageur.» So they admit that we can use acceleration to determine which twin is traveling, but in the same breath, they don't admit that it breaks the relativity principle.

Quote from: David
Quote
It works very well, but we absolutely have to know which twin has accelerated, and the relativists cannot take acceleration into account since it would contradict the relativity principle.
No - the accelerations aren't a problem for SR. The only conflict is in the interpretation of events, because SR considers all accounts of events (based on different frames of analysis) to be equally valid whereas LET says that most of the accounts must be wrong because they contradict each other (by such means as having the same acceleration make a clock run both slower and faster than it was ticking before). This dogma in SR about there being no preferred frame flies in the face of logic, but we have generations of physicists who simply reject reason on this point while claiming that they are not rejecting it (in the same way religious people do while breaking the rules of reason), and there appears to be no way to get them to see sense, no matter how clearly you spell things out for them.
What is important is that the data can be explained by the theory, and it seems that the muon can really live longer whatever the direction it takes with regard to ether, what contradicts LET.

Quote
Passing the buck - "it is for experts only to discuss such matters, so we are entitled to go on making false claims here and to ban anyone from challenging our false claims".

It really isn't worth wasting any more time on them. It's just the world in microcosm - you set a proof before people's eyes and they reject it because they are incapable of reasoning correctly and they don't respect correct reasoning if it generates conclusions that go against the beliefs of the clergy. They are followers who only ever follow authority - they simply do not trust their own minds, and that's really sad.
I did change my mind and I know I'm like others as far as resistance to change is concerned, so my explanation is that anything takes time to change and that hazard is part of the game. That's what my theory on mass means. It shows how particles resist to accelerate, but it doesn't show how they succeed to overcome the resistance, so I figured that it was due to hazard at the components' scale, the same way species succeed to change if they are lucky. This idea helps me not to automatically put the blame on others when they don't seem to understand, so it might help us to use the words that convince instead of using those that increase their resistance. It's hard to use any words when the subject is closed though. :0)

P.s.  After having closed the thread, Obi erased my last message where I cited the wiki page on ether to show that Einstein himself, in a conference at Leyde in 1920,  admitted that, without it, light couldn't propagate:

« Nous pouvons résumer comme suit : selon la théorie de la relativité générale, l'espace est pourvu de propriétés physiques, et dans ce sens, par conséquent, il existe un éther. Selon la théorie de la relativité générale, un espace sans éther est impensable, car dans un tel espace non seulement il n'y aurait pas de propagation de la lumière, mais aussi aucune possibilité d'existence pour un espace et un temps standard (mesuré par des règles et des horloges), ni par conséquent pour les intervalles d'espace-temps dans le sens physique du terme. Cependant, cet éther ne peut pas être conçu comme pourvu des qualités des medias pondérables et comme constitué de parties ayant une trajectoire dans le temps. L'idée de mouvement ne peut pas lui être appliqué. »
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 04/07/2017 22:49:49
Do you mean that relativists have the right logical answer about the Twins' paradox and that I simply didn't get it?

SR accounts for it in much the same way as LET, but not everyone in the SR camp understands it correctly and they frequently explain it badly. LET approaches it by saying, "IF the stay-at-home twin is stationary throughout and the other twin moves away and comes back, the moving twin's clock (and functionality) slows down and makes him age less".  LET can also produce an infinite range of other conditional accounts of the same kind which all start with "IF" and apply different speeds of movement to the stay-at-home twin. SR does things a little differently by getting rid of the "IF" and replacing it with, "Because the stay-at-home twin is both stationary and moving (depending on which frame you want to use, all of which are equally valid), we can simply assert that he's stationary and that the moving twin will travel through less time on both legs of the trip than the stay-at-home twin, and this is as correct as any other interpretation. It is also correct in SR to claim, "Because the stay-at-home twin is both moving and stationary, we can simply assert that he is moving throughout at a speed which leads to the moving twin being stationary during one leg of his trip and moving very fast on the second leg, so he moves through less time in total than the stay-at-home twin and we don't care about the details as to when he might have been moving through more time than the stay-at-home twin during the first leg because we have banned all discussion of simultaneity at a distance and therefore don't accept any ideas about how much time the stay-at-home twin had travelled through by the time the moving twin had turned around.

That is what they always do, and they have to do this in order to hide the point at which they are playing fast and loose with the laws of reason. The only way to push them to the point where their abuse of logic shows up is to get them to program a simulation of what happens and to do it with two sets of twins with the stay-at-home twins moving relative to each other, because at that point they have to commit the system to behaving in a rational manner which forces them to decide which clocks are going to have to run slow (or which legs of which trip travel through less time), and it's then that they suddenly realise that they cannot fudge it if the simulation is to function correctly - they can no longer just assert that the whole round trip for a travelling twin takes him through less time without coming up with proper numbers for each of the two legs of his trip. Very few of them have ever written such a simulation and most refuse to discuss how they would do so when they realise that they're being pushed into a corner. The few who actually have written such simulations must know damn well that they have imposed a preferred frame of reference on the events and that they have no alternative other than to do so. They will also realise that the universe itself cannot work by magic either and that it must likewise control the unfolding of events by using the Newtonian time of a preferred frame to control the unfolding of events.

Quote
On the wiki page about that paradox, many interpretations effectively talk about acceleration, but it is always to determine if acceleration itself affects the clocks. The interpretation that resembles the most the idea that acceleration tells us which twin is traveling is the one that says one of the twins changes reference frames, so if I understand well, for those relativists, that twin is getting younger at the same rate both ways, whereas for LET, the twin might be getting older one way, and a lot younger the other way. To me, that SR interpretation is simply illogical.

Given that most of the people speaking for SR don't understand it correctly, they also fail to explain it correctly and write confused things about the accelerations. They typically believe the accelerations have some kind of magic power to ensure that the travelling twin is always moving through less time on both legs of the trip, but what they're really doing is displaying the fact that they're not allowed to discuss the issue properly because of the dogma about not being allowed to consider simultaneity at a distance, and because time is never allowed to run slow, they can't contemplate a clock being slower during one leg of the trip and faster on the other leg - they simply aren't allowed to accommodate that idea because it is blasphemous.

Quote
They present the muon experiment as a proof that SR works, while with LET, some of those muons could very well be traveling slower than the earth with regard to ether, thus they could be having a shorter life than the laboratory ones.

With LET they could indeed be decaying more quickly, but the measuring equipment's movement through space leads to a synchronisation of clocks which makes it look as if the muons have decayed more slowly, so no such experiment can split the two theories. The only place where the two theories can be split is where one of them departs from reason by tolerating contradictions and introducing magic as part of its mechanism.

Quote
At one place, they say: «Car objectivement, seul le jumeau voyageur peut mesurer les effets de l'inertie et nous savons donc que le chemin constitué de deux segments est forcément celui du jumeau voyageur.» So they admit that we can use acceleration to determine which twin is traveling, but in the same breath, they don't admit that it breaks the relativity principle.

I can't see how they're breaking the relativity principle - it puts no ban on accelerating anything, and the same things are accelerating no matter which frame of reference you are using as the base for your observations.

Quote
What is important is that the data can be explained by the theory, and it seems that the muon can really live longer whatever the direction it takes with regard to ether, what contradicts LET.

The behaviour of muons is fully compatible with both theories.

Quote
P.s.  After having closed the thread, Obi erased my last message where I cited the wiki page on ether to show that Einstein himself, in a conference at Leyde in 1920,  admitted that, without it, light couldn't propagate

That post still appears to be there, and the thread has been unlocked (for now at least).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/07/2017 17:30:37
The thread has effectively reopened, Mach 3 has probably asked for it. I wouldn't have bet my shirt that this thread would last 5 pages. :0)

Quote
I can't see how they're breaking the relativity principle - it puts no ban on accelerating anything, and the same things are accelerating no matter which frame of reference you are using as the base for your observations.
The relativity principle says that any reference frame is good, so if we consider the twin that has accelerated as the reference, we are forced to consider that it is the other twin that changes directions, and we can apply the relativistic calculations to him. I know it's illogical, but it is nevertheless what SR is all about That's what considering the speed of light as invariant leads to. It is invariant with regard to ether, but not with regard to bodies.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/07/2017 18:09:13
The relativity principle says that any reference frame is good, so if we consider the twin that has accelerated as the reference, we are forced to consider that it is the other twin that changes directions, and we can apply the relativistic calculations to him. I know it's illogical, but it is nevertheless what SR is all about.

I see what you're saying now - clearly the relativity principle shouldn't apply to "accelerated frames" because that actually involves changing through a wide range of frames of reference. If some people are claiming that it does apply to such "accelerated frames", then clearly they're wrong, but do any of the people making such a claim have any actual authority to make such a claim or are they just SR fans who are overstating the case because they don't really understand SR?

By the way, I attempted to post on the French forum, but they used the excuse that I wrote in English as an excuse to "move" it  into a black hole inaccessible to all except mods. The greater priority  for them is clearly to protect the propagation of misinformation.

Quote
Quote from: obi76
Bonjour,
bon, on va faire simple : la théorie de l'ether a été réfutée il y a plusieurs décennies déjà.

That is a common belief, but it is not correct. A number of experiments have supposedly disproved the existence of the aether (fabric of space) by showing that the one-way speed of light is always c relative to the apparatus used to measure it, but in every case they have failed to take some fundamental factor into account, such as Doppler shift (in the case of the experiment with a turntable which has an emitter in the middle and detector at the edge - correct calculations show that the frequency of the radiation at the detector should never change regardless of how fast the apparatus is moving through space) and the twist of rotating cylinders (when light is only able to pass through the slits in both ends if it moves through the cylinder at a very specific speed - the movement of the rotating cylinder through space warps it and thereby tunes it to the actual speed the light is moving at relative to the apparatus). In each case, these experiments and the claims associated with them have remained in the literature long after their claims were shown not to be valid. I even have a university textbook which asserts that the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that there is no aether, so there is an ongoing failure of education which continues to encourage such misinformation to be propagated. The reality is that LET is still a fully viable theory (which has also been extended to cover the full ground of General Relativity in addition to SR, generating the same numbers from the same maths and differing only in interpretation).

It is bizarre that in physics there are so many people who feel the need to suppress the discussion of a key theory which is a powerful rival to a very dodgy theory which has become some kind of holy cow for them. There is some weird psychological phenomenon in play here.

Quote from: didier
Le point déjà soulevé est que vouloir comprendre la Relativité en partant de la LET est une trèèèès mauvaise chose...(pour le moins qu'on puisse dire).

Indeed, it's almost psychopathic.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 05/07/2017 18:57:58
I see what you're saying now - clearly the relativity principle shouldn't apply to "accelerated frames" because that actually involves changing through a wide range of frames of reference. If some people are claiming that it does apply to such "accelerated frames", then clearly they're wrong, but do any of the people making such a claim have any actual authority to make such a claim or are they just SR fans who are overstating the case because they don't really understand SR?

Acceleration has nothing to do with a clocks tick rate in a frame. Deceleration increases a clocks tick rate while acceleration decreases a clocks tick rate. Both create gravity as acceleration in a=g. On the Earth the surface ticks faster than the center in tick rates. There is no acceleration in the center.



The relativity principle says that any reference frame is good, so if we consider the twin that has accelerated as the reference, we are forced to consider that it is the other twin that changes directions, and we can apply the relativistic calculations to him. I know it's illogical, but it is nevertheless what SR is all about That's what considering the speed of light as invariant leads to. It is invariant with regard to ether, but not with regard to bodies.

Direction has nothing to do with it except on a rotating body like a planet. That is different from space forward and back. On a planet you are returning to the same position and carrying your own frame's aura. You are only moving faster in one direction and slower in the other direction due to distance changes which exactly corrects for the other no matter your speed. Atomic clocks walking to the speed of light in a photon. This is different from free space.


SR accounts for it in much the same way as LET, but not everyone in the SR camp understands it correctly and they frequently explain it badly. LET approaches it by saying, "IF the stay-at-home twin is stationary throughout and the other twin moves away and comes back, the moving twin's clock (and functionality) slows down and makes him age less".  LET can also produce an infinite range of other conditional accounts of the same kind which all start with "IF" and apply different speeds of movement to the stay-at-home twin. SR does things a little differently by getting rid of the "IF" and replacing it with, "Because the stay-at-home twin is both stationary and moving (depending on which frame you want to use, all of which are equally valid), we can simply assert that he's stationary and that the moving twin will travel through less time on both legs of the trip than the stay-at-home twin, and this is as correct as any other interpretation. It is also correct in SR to claim, "Because the stay-at-home twin is both moving and stationary, we can simply assert that he is moving throughout at a speed which leads to the moving twin being stationary during one leg of his trip and moving very fast on the second leg, so he moves through less time in total than the stay-at-home twin and we don't care about the details as to when he might have been moving through more time than the stay-at-home twin during the first leg because we have banned all discussion of simultaneity at a distance and therefore don't accept any ideas about how much time the stay-at-home twin had travelled through by the time the moving twin had turned around.That is what they always do, and they have to do this in order to hide the point at which they are playing fast and loose with the laws of reason. The only way to push them to the point where their abuse of logic shows up is to get them to program a simulation of what happens and to do it with two sets of twins with the stay-at-home twins moving relative to each other, because at that point they have to commit the system to behaving in a rational manner which forces them to decide which clocks are going to have to run slow (or which legs of which trip travel through less time), and it's then that they suddenly realise that they cannot fudge it if the simulation is to function correctly - they can no longer just assert that the whole round trip for a travelling twin takes him through less time without coming up with proper numbers for each of the two legs of his trip. Very few of them have ever written such a simulation and most refuse to discuss how they would do so when they realise that they're being pushed into a corner. The few who actually have written such simulations must know damn well that they have imposed a preferred frame of reference on the events and that they have no alternative other than to do so. They will also realise that the universe itself cannot work by magic either and that it must likewise control the unfolding of events by using the Newtonian time of a preferred frame to control the unfolding of events.

There are no direction issues in space. The only thing your clock measures is the ratio between kinetic energy used vs. fundamental energy available of which only fundamental energy available is measured on your clock as tick rate. So available tick rate ratio is strictly based on that ratio. LET creates the framework that creates the photon wave and the electron cycle. Energy is conserved in the electron through motion through space. All the motion is calculated in the cycle rate of your clock. Its the extra space the electron has to move through that slows the cycle completion duration. It follows geometry.

Communication is done through a LET type information system. This is what Einstein was trying to understand as a process when he claimed there was a matrix type. It could not have motion of direction and still follow relativity he suggested.

One other issue is in communication styles. He claimed all views have equal validity. In the German language this also means no view is valid. He could have a negative claim in a positive expression. In reality no one has a Gods eye view. We all have simultaneity of relativity view.

Time as reaction rates becomes clear when related to the ratio of c being used in conservation of energy.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/07/2017 20:55:58
Quote from: David
By the way, I attempted to post on the French forum, but they used the excuse that I wrote in English as an excuse to "move" it  into a black hole inaccessible to all except mods. The greater priority  for them is clearly to protect the propagation of misinformation.
I was about to translate your message, but Obi closed the thread again. Shame on my french origin. :0)   I already began to divulgate my late conversion on the sciencechatforum (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=324832#p323270), on a forum dedicated to physics ( sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=324832#p323270 ), so I suspect it will be shipped to Personal Theory sooner or later. I also plan to titillate the other scientific forums a bit, even if I know they won't like it. You never know if some interesting reader will not react favorably. By the way, on the french forum, I received an PM from a guy that I met on a philosophy forum a few months ago. He did not recognize me because I didn't wear the same name. His Name is Philippe de Bellecise, and he wrote a book about the logical flaws of SR. I told him about you, but he told me he didn't know enough english to discuss with you. I'm still trying to apply my new thinking to my own theory on motion, so since our two theories are similar, I still have to discover why Ivanhov thinks contraction is happening to both arms of the interferometer. You don't understand Russian by chance? :0) The translators are terrible!
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/07/2017 01:35:09
I was about to translate your message, but Obi closed the thread again. Shame on my french origin. :0)

France is not to blame - it is simply a forum that happens to be French doing the same thing as happens on most science forums. Fortunately there are a few forums that are brave enough to tolerate this kind of "blasphemy", but most appear to feel deeply threatened by it for some reason, perhaps because having a good understanding of LET is absolutely essential before anyone can obtain an adequate understanding of SR (and thereby see what's wrong with it).

Quote
I also plan to titillate the other scientific forums a bit, even if I know they won't like it. You never know if some interesting reader will not react favorably.

There's no harm in spreading education.

Quote
By the way, on the french forum, I received an PM from a guy that I met on a philosophy forum a few months ago. He did not recognize me because I didn't wear the same name. His Name is Philippe de Bellecise, and he wrote a book about the logical flaws of SR. I told him about you, but he told me he didn't know enough english to discuss with you.

If he was keen enough, he would not let that be a barrier, so it's most likely a polite excuse (which is quite understandable given that most introductions don't lead to happy results).

Quote
I'm still trying to apply my new thinking to my own theory on motion, so since our two theories are similar, I still have to discover why Ivanhov thinks contraction is happening to both arms of the interferometer. You don't understand Russian by chance? :0) The translators are terrible!

At the moment, I can only read Russian well enough to understand about half of what's being said, so I use Google Translate to deal with all the unknown vocabulary. His page in English is already very well translated though, and I think it's more a matter of studying the maths to find out what he's done - I didn't have the time to go through it carefully, but I'm sure it will turn out to be the result of him not lowering the frequency in accordance with time dilation. You said you'd had conversations with him by email in the past, so perhaps you should just ask him directly by email whether he adjusted the frequency to account for the light being generated by a device with slowed functionality - he should already know whether he did that without having to hunt for it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/07/2017 02:38:45
In answer to the title . the mechanics of relativity is the purpose to describe how bodies change their position in space with time.

Albert Einstein (1879–1955).  Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.

III.  Space and Time in Classical Mechanics

Einstein explains this in the opening sentence.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/07/2017 14:07:48
In answer to the title . the mechanics of relativity is the purpose to describe how bodies change their position in space with time. Albert Einstein (1879–1955).  Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.III.  Space and Time in Classical MechanicsEinstein explains this in the opening sentence

How bodies move is described very well by the postulates of relativity. The how is not in question here. Postulates are not mechanics. What are the Mechanics strive to answer why? Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to answer this question. He recognized there was an Ether type communication but the rest of the science community rejected this line of reasoning. This rejection continues today in modern physics. Modern physics depends on the magic of telepathy between electrons to tick at their synchronized rate in a frame.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/07/2017 14:17:51
In answer to the title . the mechanics of relativity is the purpose to describe how bodies change their position in space with time. Albert Einstein (1879–1955).  Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.III.  Space and Time in Classical MechanicsEinstein explains this in the opening sentence

How bodies move is described very well by the postulates of relativity. The how is not in question here. Postulates are not mechanics. What are the Mechanics strive to answer why? Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to answer this question. He recognized there was an Ether type communication but the rest of the science community rejected this line of reasoning. This rejection continues today in modern physics. Modern physics depends on the magic of telepathy between electrons to tick at their synchronized rate in a frame.

The mechanics is for the navigation and predictions  of space, the aether is seemingly field like, and the shape of relativity is  imaginable patterns in an undefined absolute space. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/07/2017 22:48:04
Quote from: David
I'm sure it will turn out to be the result of him not lowering the frequency in accordance with time dilation.
In his sound experiment, Ivanhov got contracted standing waves depending on the wind's speed whatever it's direction, so he figured that the atoms would move to stay on the nodes while contracting in the same time, and he observed that the nodes were contracting in the same proportion whatever the direction of the wind, which meant that if it was so for the MM experiment, there would be no need for time dilation to explain the null result. The contraction of his standing wave depends on doppler effect, it is due to the interference between a blueshifted wave and a redshifted one, and the relativistic contraction depends on the time light takes between the mirrors, which has nothing to do with doppler effect, so it is not surprising that he gets a null result this way since there is not observable doppler effect in the MM experiment. At least, my contraction at acceleration depends on the same phenomenon as the relativistic one, but it depends one one atom moving before the other, which causes it to resist the acceleration. Ivanhov talks about that at one place in his paper, where he explains inertia, but his two atoms move at the same time, and he does not explain how it could be so.

«Let’s also examine the case with absent phase displacement between the sources which are forced to move to the right with certain constant speed.
Fig.85 ,
http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/cartoon/cartoon1_files/Fig_85d.gif
Deformation of standing wave develops in such system: it moves left of the sources, and additional wave field emerges to the right. On the part of the anti-node and the wave field which emerged to the right, the force appears applied to the sources and preventing the system’s transfer.

To transfer this system in wave medium is impossible without resistance. The system with no phase displacement would resist any transfer because it seeks to avoid any deformations which is possible only with zero velocity relative to medium. That’s how inertia emerges.»


He thus might be wrong about this one, and he is surely wrong about action without counteraction: it doesn't work in the example with the two jets here (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#6.06) ( http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#6.06 ), and it doesn't work either in the example with the two guys throwing stones in opposite directions in a boat here (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#4.02) ( http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#4.02 ), because he doesn't account for the boat's loss of mass due to the unballasting of stones. His mind seems oriented towards developing antigravity, not to find the way things work.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 08/07/2017 18:50:15
I'm very sure that he's not changing the wavelength in the way he ought to be - his numbers are out by exactly the right amount for that to be the case. It's highly unlikely that there could be any other reason for this particular difference in his predictions. Importantly, with width-contraction in addition to length-contraction, it would be possible to detect the preferred frame.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 08/07/2017 19:20:56
An idea cannot explain one thing and its contrary anyway, and his explains inertia, which is action with counteraction, and its contrary, which is action without counteraction. It shows how blind we can get on details when we are persuaded we are right on the main idea.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 10/07/2017 17:44:47
David Cooper

Quote
The travelling rocket made its trip in two years while the Earth took four years to travel the same distance into the future, but it did so without its clocks running slow, and this means that the rocket has jumped two years ahead of the Earth into the future to be reunited with a future version of the Earth rather than the current version (which will still have to wait another two years before it experiences that same event of the rocket meeting up with it).

In the graphic, A moves 4 light sec at .4c, and B moves 8 lsec at .8c, which requires 10 Earth sec for both. The blue light speed profile, has a value of 1. The B path is modified with a reversal D to rejoin A at .8c. The green hyperbola represents a constant time for all clocks as a function of speed.  Since the inverse of gamma(Lorentz factor) is a circular arc, and arcs are easier to construct, the moving clock times are transformed to the ct axis using arcs. 
An arc from the Earth ct value (10) meets the x value for the endpoint of clock A (4), and translates horizontally to the ct axis (9.17). The same method applied to the B clock gives (6.00). Each clock traveled a different distance, at different speeds, and indicate different times. The observations by A and B are not contradictions, but expected differences resulting from different histories. They still meet at the same place, at the same time relative to the Earth reference. There are no time meshing problems. The time process for each A, B, and E, is independent of the others.

https://app.box.com/s/zmx7pv29wwhzyn1n5quxs1q1g9oqu0cy
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 10/07/2017 19:01:34
It's foolish to believe timing has anything to do with meshing into the present. Everything resides in the present all over the universe. Time meshing is science fiction. We travel in the present. In between events that happened and events that are going to happen.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/07/2017 21:58:08
There are no time meshing problems.

What is this "time meshing" idea? Someone else used that expression earlier in this thread, I think, but it has nothing to do with me. On my page there are references to events meshing or failing to mesh, and what that refers to is the ability of things to meet up and interact at a Spacetime location. If two objects meet and interact at a Spacetime location, that is an event, and it's an event where things mesh together correctly - object 1 meets object 2 and object 2 is met by object 1. However, if the two objects reach that Spacetime location at different times (by a Newtonian time not accepted as existing in the model), the event cannot mesh correctly because one object is there too soon and the other is there too late for them to interact with each other there. But given that this Newtonian time isn't in the model, how can this ever be an issue? Well, if you claim that the time of the time dimension always runs at full speed without the clocks on some paths ticking more slowly than the clocks on other paths, you are necessarily adding Newtonian time to the model because it leads to different objects failing to arrive together at Spacetime locations where they are asserted to meet up.

For example, in your diagram, you have one clock moving along path A and another along path B, but if the second of those clocks takes the left turn at point R and follows the line which I think you named D in your description, the two clocks will be reunited at the point where lines A and D meet up at the top of the diagram. One of the clocks takes 9.165s to reach that Spacetime location while the other clock takes 6s to get there. If both clocks travel through time at the same rate, one of the clocks will reach that Spacetime location too early to meet up with the other, so the event that happens there fails to mesh together.

There are two rational approaches to get round this problem (each with a number of variations), but both of them have crucial consequences which should not be brushed under the carpet. The simplest way is to have one of the clocks tick at a slower rate than the other, but that requires the time of one frame of reference to control the slowing of clock ticks for all other frames (which means there is a preferred frame, which is not supposed to be in the model). The other way is to have a block universe so that the first clock to reach a Spacetime location persists there for a later-arriving clock to interact with when it catches up with it there, but that means events are initially running under a Newtonian time which is not supposed to be in the model either but which enables event-meshing failures to occur before the late-arriving objects reach the same Spacetime locations and rewrite history there.

The model as it stands is deficient - it either needs Newtonian time to be added to it in order to allow a block universe to be generated (with events changing at individual Spacetime locations under Newtonian time as different objects arrive there and make their presence felt), or it needs the Newtonian time of a preferred frame to govern the rate at which all clocks tick so that events always mesh correctly at any individual Spacetime location, thereby allowing all the players arrive there simultaneously. The only way the model can come close to making sense without these additions is if you have a block universe that was never generated in order of causation, but which merely exists with apparent chains of causation running through it by luck alone (because none of the apparent effects can ever have been caused by their apparent causes).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 11/07/2017 12:08:33
What is this "time meshing" idea? Someone else used that expression earlier in this thread, I think, but it has nothing to do with me. On my page there are references to events meshing or failing to mesh, and what that refers to is the ability of things to meet up and interact at a Spacetime location. If two objects meet and interact at a Spacetime location, that is an event, and it's an event where things mesh together correctly - object 1 meets object 2 and object 2 is met by object 1. However, if the two objects reach that Spacetime location at different times (by a Newtonian time not accepted as existing in the model), the event cannot mesh correctly because one object is there too soon and the other is there too late for them to interact with each other there. But given that this Newtonian time isn't in the model, how can this ever be an issue? Well, if you claim that the time of the time dimension always runs at full speed without the clocks on some paths ticking more slowly than the clocks on other paths, you are necessarily adding Newtonian time to the model because it leads to different objects failing to arrive together at Spacetime locations where they are asserted to meet up.For example, in your diagram, you have one clock moving along path A and another along path B, but if the second of those clocks takes the left turn at point R and follows the line which I think you named D in your description, the two clocks will be reunited at the point where lines A and D meet up at the top of the diagram. One of the clocks takes 9.165s to reach that Spacetime location while the other clock takes 6s to get there. If both clocks travel through time at the same rate, one of the clocks will reach that Spacetime location too early to meet up with the other, so the event that happens there fails to mesh together.There are two rational approaches to get round this problem (each with a number of variations), but both of them have crucial consequences which should not be brushed under the carpet. The simplest way is to have one of the clocks tick at a slower rate than the other, but that requires the time of one frame of reference to control the slowing of clock ticks for all other frames (which means there is a preferred frame, which is not supposed to be in the model). The other way is to have a block universe so that the first clock to reach a Spacetime location persists there for a later-arriving clock to interact with when it catches up with it there, but that means events are initially running under a Newtonian time which is not supposed to be in the model either but which enables event-meshing failures to occur before the late-arriving objects reach the same Spacetime locations and rewrite history there.The model as it stands is deficient - it either needs Newtonian time to be added to it in order to allow a block universe to be generated (with events changing at individual Spacetime locations under Newtonian time as different objects arrive there and make their presence felt), or it needs the Newtonian time of a preferred frame to govern the rate at which all clocks tick so that events always mesh correctly at any individual Spacetime location, thereby allowing all the players arrive there simultaneously. The only way the model can come close to making sense without these additions is if you have a block universe that was never generated in order of causation, but which merely exists with apparent chains of causation running through it by luck alone (because none of the apparent effects can ever have been caused by their apparent causes).


There is a preferred frame but not one at rest. c is the preferred frame of course. All timing is a fraction of the energy c. At 0.866 velocity you are at half the reaction rate of relative rest. Your clock measures the reaction rate of your frame. There is no preferred frame at rest. No frame can measure their own speed relative to c. You need a minimum of three data points and you only have two in every frame. Two ships in space cannot determine which ship is moving so they do not have the third data point. That is why measurements are not preferred in any frame. Its relatively simple. There is a basis for all relative conditions. "c"
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 11/07/2017 19:00:05
David Cooper#390
Quote
What is this "time meshing" idea? Someone else used that expression earlier in this thread, I think, but it has nothing to do with me. On my page there are references to events meshing or failing to mesh, and what that refers to is the ability of things to meet up and interact at a Spacetime location. If two objects meet and interact at a Spacetime location, that is an event, and it's an event where things mesh together correctly - object 1 meets object 2 and object 2 is met by object 1. However, if the two objects reach that Spacetime location at different times (by a Newtonian time not accepted as existing in the model), the event cannot mesh correctly because one object is there too soon and the other is there too late for them to interact with each other there. But given that this Newtonian time isn't in the model, how can this ever be an issue? Well, if you claim that the time of the time dimension always runs at full speed without the clocks on some paths ticking more slowly than the clocks on other paths, you are necessarily adding Newtonian time to the model because it leads to different objects failing to arrive together at Spacetime locations where they are asserted to meet up.

For example, in your diagram, you have one clock moving along path A and another along path B, but if the second of those clocks takes the left turn at point R and follows the line which I think you named D in your description, the two clocks will be reunited at the point where lines A and D meet up at the top of the diagram. One of the clocks takes 9.165s to reach that Spacetime location while the other clock takes 6s to get there. If both clocks travel through time at the same rate, one of the clocks will reach that Spacetime location too early to meet up with the other, so the event that happens there fails to mesh together.
It’s event meshing and it’s about time. The underlined statement is the problem. The A and B clocks move in space and their speed determines their rate of time/ticking. They do not move through ‘time’,since ‘time’ is not a thing with extent, like ‘space’, it was defined as a dimension only in a mathematical sense..
‘Moving in time’ is a metaphorical interpretation promoted by physicist Brian Greene.
They do meet simultaneously in the earth frame where and when the event occurs.The A and B times are local and only meaningful to them. There is no universal ‘time’ lurking in the background overseeing and coordinating events. If clocks and their owners literally got behind or ahead in time, they should disappear and reappear, but that has not been observed.
Just considering the earth rotating, you can’t have one time for everyone, unless you want the people on the dark side to wake up and fix lunch!
Isn’t it interesting that despite the slowing clock phenomena, they all perceive a common time.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/07/2017 22:39:25
It’s event meshing and it’s about time. The underlined statement is the problem. The A and B clocks move in space and their speed determines their rate of time/ticking. They do not move through ‘time’,since ‘time’ is not a thing with extent, like ‘space’, it was defined as a dimension only in a mathematical sense..
‘Moving in time’ is a metaphorical interpretation promoted by physicist Brian Greene.

There are various models which are used to represent Einstein's relativity, and in order to explore things fully you have to take a look at all of them. The bit about things moving through time refers very specifically to Spacetime models which have a time dimension in them, as used by Minkowski for SR and also as is used for GR to eliminate gravity as a force. Within that kind of model, there is no provision for anything to move more slowly through the time dimension than any other object, so they must all move through it while their clocks tick at the same rate as each other, and the result is event-meshing failure.

If you want to write such models off as metaphorical, that's fine by me, but I still have to discuss them because many people flee to them for ideological reasons in a desperate attempt to remove the need for a preferred frame. Note that in my 3-mode interactive diagram I officially only cover 4D Spacetime models which include a time dimension, as opposed to 3D space models with Newtonian time, but modes 2 and 3 can actually serve perfectly well for the latter kind of models too, with mode 2 then representing something that is arguably Einstein's SR before Minkowski tampered with it, and mode 3 representing LET. The exact same problem applies to mode 2 as before though - as you change frame, you make events that have already happened unhappen and you make events that hadn't happened happen, and you also change the speed of light relative to every object in the universe. It is impossible for the universe to function in mode 2 because of the contradictions which it thus generates.

Quote
They do meet simultaneously in the earth frame where and when the event occurs.The A and B times are local and only meaningful to them. There is no universal ‘time’ lurking in the background overseeing and coordinating events. If clocks and their owners literally got behind or ahead in time, they should disappear and reappear, but that has not been observed.

If you don't have something coordinating how time runs at different rates for different objects, you will have objects disappearing as they get out of sync (and occasionally reappearing), and as you rightly say, that has not been observed. So how are these things coordinated? Magic or a rational system? The only rational mechanism is the preferred frame one, and that only works if one frame is the preferred frame - it doesn't work if you want all frames to be the preferred frame because you then have contradictions in the mechanism with one frame's governance causing a clock to tick more slowly after an acceleration than it was ticking before while another frame's governance causes that same clock to tick more quickly after the same acceleration than it was running before.

Quote
Just considering the earth rotating, you can’t have one time for everyone, unless you want the people on the dark side to wake up and fix lunch!

You can have GMT ("universal" time) with people getting up at radically different times of the clock, but that doesn't relate to the issue being discussed here.

Mode 2 of the interactive diagram shows exactly why you need a preferred frame - you can stop time and switch backwards and forwards between Frame A and Frame B while watching events happen and unhappen even though time and the unfolding of events has been temporarily halted. The real universe needs events to stay happened once they've happened rather than keep changing them every time someone decides to switch the frame they're using to analyse events. Anyone who writes a relativity simulation ought to understand that, because they are forced to use a preferred frame mechanism to coordinate the unfolding of events if they want to avoid event-meshing failures, and they are not allowed to tolerate events unhappening if they're trying to represent the real universe, so they are forced to use mode 3 (which is either 4D Spacetime with a preferred frame [whose time is as good as Newtonian and whose time dimension is an unnecessary complication], or it's 3D LET with Newtonian time).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: puppypower on 12/07/2017 12:02:43
The mechanics of relativity is based on inertial energy and not the energy signal given off that is measured. For example, say we have two rockets one with mass M and the other with mass 2M, moving at relative velocity V. Depending on who is moving will result in two different system energies. If the rocket with mass M is moving with velocity V, its kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. If the rocket with mass 2M is moving at V, it has a kinetic energy if MV2. The amount of energy is not relative to reference since one cannot create or destroy energy without violating energy conservation. There is an absolute order, which we can test by giving each rocket the same amount of energy and noting the final velocity.

In the case of the twin paradox, only the twin with the energy ages slower. He is the twin that used energy to propel his rocket through space and back. Although the stationary twin can pretend to move with relative velocity V, he does not have sufficient real energy for time dilation to happen, in reality. Relative reference is pretend motion since it can be used to unknowingly violate energy conservation, which is one of the few laws of science.

The reason we tend to pretend relative motion, is because we can't always measure system energy and/or we don't know who has the energy. Things are too far away to physically measure. We depend upon light emissions, since that is the only tangible thing we have. This second hand data can appear to show relative motion. Since we can't measure the inertia energy directly this is the best we can do. However, as shown above, this can result is a bad energy balance, thereby requiring postulating new things that cannot be seen in the lab, but appear necessary to close the universal energy balance.

 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 12/07/2017 12:33:04
it doesn't work if you want all frames to be the preferred frame because you then have contradictions in the mechanism with one frame's governance causing a clock to tick more slowly after an acceleration than it was ticking before while another frame's governance causes that same clock to tick more quickly after the same acceleration than it was running before.

Puppypower is correct it only the mass that accelerated towards "c" that ticks slower as it increases acceleration. Deceleration from "c" increases the tick rate. The controlling mechanism is "c" as fundamental energy being conserved in electrons motion through space. The electrons traveling closer to c have more space length to travel through per cycle. At c the electron can no longer cycle and our measurement of time stops. Since electrons move in a helix. There motion through space is c but there distance in a straight line is not measured as c. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 12/07/2017 20:00:46
For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-acceleration-slow-time.919565/page-2#post-5801139
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 12/07/2017 23:15:56
For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.

Given that you can never know if it's acceleration or deceleration, it doesn't tell you much - only that when two things separate and then reunite, the one that accelerated will have moved at speeds which lead to his clock running slower on average (than a clock with the unaccelerated thing which moved at a constant speed throughout). Having said that though, if both twins accelerate and one of them then accelerates the opposite way straight afterwards while the other keeps going away, the one that's accelerated more (in terms of force experienced) could end up being the one who ages more by the time they're reunited - he could do the same thing again when the other one turns round (accelerating and decelerating), and again when the other one is reunited with him (accelerating to travel with him for a moment, then decelerating with him). So, just measuring the force experienced is not enough.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 13/07/2017 12:09:42
Acceleration and deceleration has nothing to do with the clock tick rate. Its your velocity vs. c that determines tick rate of your clock.

The voyagers moving from the solar system sped up their clocks due to GR rather than SR.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 13/07/2017 16:08:39
Newton is partly responsible for the quest for an 'absolute rest frame'.
His postulate of motion/inertia states, "a body at rest or a body in uniform motion remains in it's state unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force".
He therefore proposes/implies two different states for material objects, rest and motion.
If 'rest' is redefined as 'a state of motion with each of two objects having the same velocity', then rest is just a special case of motion, just as a square is a special case of a rectangle. Two objects moving at 1000 m/sec, in the same direction, would simultaneously be in a 'relative' rest state. An absolute rest frame then becomes meaningless and redundant.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 13/07/2017 16:14:35
For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-acceleration-slow-time.919565/page-2#post-5801139
If you examine the gamma/Lorentz factor, you find (1) and (v/c). That factor is used to calculate time dilation, and it does not contain a term for acceleration.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/07/2017 16:27:08
... So, just measuring the force experienced is not enough.
I know it's not enough, but I think I can still prove that not knowing the direction and the rate of acceleration prevents us from calculating the dilation.

Dale complicated the problem with a third observer. The two clocks are moving with regard to the observer, the observer is at rest, one clock accelerates away from the other, what is the time dilation with regard to the observer suffered from the clock that has accelerated a second time? I said there was no solution without knowing first if it is the two clocks or the observer that is moving, he said the solution was
07acbf7f4771189497bf63d224bd5977.gif .
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/07/2017 16:39:00
For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-acceleration-slow-time.919565/page-2#post-5801139
If you examine the gamma/Lorentz factor, you find (1) and (v/c). That factor is used to calculate time dilation, and it does not contain a term for acceleration.
I know, and that's what I contest. Without knowing which clock is moving, then if we apply this formula to both clocks, both are going to suffer the same time dilation, and it won't work if we add a third observer.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 13/07/2017 17:58:00
An absolute rest frame then becomes meaningless and redundant.

Except that it's required to eliminate the contradictions. Any theory that tolerates mechanistic contradictions is wrong. If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 13/07/2017 19:23:10
... So, just measuring the force experienced is not enough.
I know it's not enough, but I think I can still prove that not knowing the direction and the rate of acceleration prevents us from calculating the dilation.

Dale complicated the problem with a third observer. The two clocks are moving with regard to the observer, the observer is at rest, one clock accelerates away from the other, what is the time dilation with regard to the observer suffered from the clock that has accelerated a second time? I said there was no solution without knowing first if it is the two clocks or the observer that is moving, he said the solution was
07acbf7f4771189497bf63d224bd5977.gif .

The 3rd observer is usually for the 2nd leg of B returning to A, eliminating the complication of the reversal, i.e. B2 gets a time from B1 as they cross paths.the integral totals the incremental times while accelerating, but a clock does this automatically, so the observer just reads his clock. The curve for acceleration can be approximated with straight line segments, which contribute to time dilation. The bottom line is acceleration is just a means to an end, being to change speed.
SR eliminates the need to know which one is moving, only the difference or relative speed.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 13/07/2017 19:28:55
David Cooper;

There is no unhappening/undoing of events because of changing reference frames. You just get a different description of events. In the real world,  events do happen once but are perceived many times because observers are at different locations. This argues against a block universe.
A simulation is not a real world experience no more than drawing a graph of the history of an object moving in space.

In the case of A and B reuniting, its thought processes that coordinate their motions to achieve that goal. In all cases of humanly directed processes, its thought that coordinates events. In the natural world of inanimate objects, they interact at random.

In examining the light clock, it’s the light that moves in two dimensions, while the clock moves in one dimension. Thus nothing moves in time, it’s only a line on paper. That makes it physically unreal (and magical).
Of course, if you want drama, and the appearance of ‘deep meaning’, and book sales, that’s the path to follow.

Quote
 We cannot tell which frame of reference is tied to the fabric of space, so we cannot tell which accounts are true and which are false, but we are allowed to pick whichever frame of reference is the most convenient for us to work with, and then we can use it for our calculations exactly as if it is the special, absolute frame of reference.
So you state we don’t need an absolute reference. Why then say it’s necessary? Whether from Lorentz, Einstein, Poincare, or any others working on a theory of relativity, the significance of it was enabling uniform descriptions of physical processes without having to reference a ‘special’ frame. If you don’t see that then you don’t understand the principle of the  theory. That principle allows for all descriptions to be different yet valid.

As Einstein said in the 1905 paper, it didn’t matter whether the wire moved or the magnet moved, there was an induced current, i.e. which one moves is not relevant.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 13/07/2017 21:14:11
There is no unhappening/undoing of events because of changing reference frames. You just get a different description of events. In the real world,  events do happen once but are perceived many times because observers are at different locations. This argues against a block universe.

The block universe actually avoids the unhappening issue, although it runs into other serious problems which prevents the model working until you add Newtonian time to it.

Quote
A simulation is not a real world experience no more than drawing a graph of the history of an object moving in space.

If you have a rational, functional model, a simulation must be able to run it. My 3-mode interactive diagram is a relativity simulation (which has been made as minimal as possible to show the key functionality of the models involved), and it shows up the event-meshing failures (mode 1), events happening and unhappening when you change frame (mode 2), and viable functionality is only found when there is a preferred frame (mode 3) [or in mode 1 if you have a block universe which runs under an additional Newtonian time].

Quote
In examining the light clock, it’s the light that moves in two dimensions, while the clock moves in one dimension. Thus nothing moves in time, it’s only a line on paper. That makes it physically unreal (and magical).

The clock and light both move in three dimensions, and without time they cannot move - it is not unreal, and it's no more magical than space or energy (or it's as magical as space and energy).

Quote
Quote
We cannot tell which frame of reference is tied to the fabric of space, so we cannot tell which accounts are true and which are false, but we are allowed to pick whichever frame of reference is the most convenient for us to work with, and then we can use it for our calculations exactly as if it is the special, absolute frame of reference.
So you state we don’t need an absolute reference.

How do you read that into what I said? We can make useful calculations without knowing which frame is the absolute frame [or which available frame is closest to it - the absolute frame needn't be directly available in our 3D space if that space is contained in the surface of an expanding 4D bubble], but the universe still depends on an absolute frame for its functionality, and by extension, we depend upon that absolute frame too even though we can't identify it.

Quote
Why then say it’s necessary?

Because without it, you have to use magic to deal with the contradictions where maths/logic has been carelessly discarded by a defective theory.

Quote
Whether from Lorentz, Einstein, Poincare, or any others working on a theory of relativity, the significance of it was enabling uniform descriptions of physical processes without having to reference a ‘special’ frame.

That is not "the" significance, but merely "a" significance - that you can achieve almost everything you want to with your calculations without knowing which is the special frame. But the universe still depends on a preferred frame as the most important part of its relativity mechanism.

Quote
If you don’t see that then you don’t understand the principle of the  theory. That principle allows for all descriptions to be different yet valid.

No - they're valid for some of the things that can be computed which don't vary with frame, but they are not valid for the things that do vary by frame unless they happen by luck to have been based on the absolute frame.

Quote
As Einstein said in the 1905 paper, it didn’t matter whether the wire moved or the magnet moved, there was an induced current, i.e. which one moves is not relevant.

Clearly many people are happy to tolerate contradictions with this theory even though they don't tolerate them when doing mathematics, but that's something for psychologists to explore.

The reality is that a relativity simulation depends on both a preferred frame and Newtonian time unless it's merely simulating imaginary movement in a static block universe (where no causality is real). The universe depends on a preferred frame and Newtonian time too. See if you can find any physicists who think that relativity can't be simulated. Then see if you can find one of them who can actually write a simulation for relativity which doesn't either cheat by using a preferred frame mechanism to coordinate events (thereby making things happen and unhappen when the frame is changed [which you agree that we can't allow the real universe to do]), or which only applies to a static block universe where causality has no role, or which only applies to a block universe in which event-meshing failures occur. Beyond that there is nowhere else to go other than piling on layers of obfuscation to hide all the cheating.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/07/2017 21:58:32
Thread closed just when it was getting interesting. I think I'm going to open a new one to talk about my conversion from SR unbeliever to LET believer. I bet they won't be as happy as Jorrie seems to be here: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=325037#p325358
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 14/07/2017 12:17:36

  All of you are confusing light with a real time view. Lets say there is no light. The collisions would still happen and no collisions would un-happen. What we view and measure is never in the real present while we exist in a section of time needed to recognize as the present. What is time? Time is the energy c given to motion. c is the fixed frame but it definitely is not a rest frame. It is the frame of motion that moves electrons. Energy of space moves the electrons and energy is conserved in SR by distance of space traversed included in the cycle to slow electron cycle duration (tick rate). We are caught in a catch 22. Our reaction time in our present is always equal to our tick rate. With velocity we can not determine another's tick rate in their frame relative to c. Duration of ones signal is affected by velocity. There is no frame at rest.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 14/07/2017 16:45:42
Thread closed just when it was getting interesting. I think I'm going to open a new one to talk about my conversion from SR unbeliever to LET believer. I bet they won't be as happy as Jorrie seems to be here: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=325037#p325358
There is no difference between SR and LET in application.  The authors of the various 'relativity' theories were working on the same issues within the same time period. Poincare even corrected some of Lorentz's errors, i.e. they communicated among themselves. Any form of 'ether' was not necessary, and SR removed any special frame which made its acceptance easier in terms of simplicity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 14/07/2017 16:55:11
An absolute rest frame then becomes meaningless and redundant.

Except that it's required to eliminate the contradictions. Any theory that tolerates mechanistic contradictions is wrong. If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.
That's why it's called 'relativity', each one sees the same phenomena based on their relative speed. It would be a contradiction (and puzzling) if A saw something different from what B sees! What you fail to get is the clock phenomena is their perception and not the behavior of the clocks.
I've read and reread the paper at 'Magic' to have a better understanding of what it says. Where did these ideas about event meshing originate?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 14/07/2017 17:18:12
Quote from: David
If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.

That is not a relativity claim at all. With two synchronized clocks and two observers each observer can view the other's clock as being behind their own. That is just simultaneity of relativity.

If you have a ship moving away from the Earth at 0.87c relative and you had a magic telescope Earths clock would appear to run slower than their own. This is because the images are traveling at 0.13c relative. Even though the clocks on Earth are ticking much faster the view is much slower to reach the ship in the increasing distances. The ships magic telescope would view the ships clock even slower than the earths view of the ships clock. The view and the reality are always two different issues.

All views are equally valid. This is only the truth because no view is valid.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 14/07/2017 18:40:18
Any form of 'ether' was not necessary, and SR removed any special frame which made its acceptance easier in terms of simplicity.
I can't figure out the simplicity. I've been on the net for ten years without anybody being able to help me understand SR, and a simple simulation did the job in two days. Maybe Einstein would have changed his mind about simplicity if he had seen what I saw. It is one thing to imagine the motion of light through the moving interferometer, but it is another one to see it, especially when it is moving along the moving telescope laser. The other possibility is that I am completely dumb, and it aches. :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/07/2017 22:27:08
What you fail to get is the clock phenomena is their perception and not the behavior of the clocks.

I get absolutely all of it. What you're failing to get is that the universe has to do something specific to coordinate the unfolding of events, and it can't have clock A ticking faster than clock B while at the same time having clock B ticking faster than clock A. If it does one of those, it cannot be doing both.

If we have a planet with a rocket repeatedly leaving it and returning such that the (equally spaced) reunion points can be shown running up a Spacetime diagram and labelled N, O, P, Q, R, S, etc., then we have a universe which is unfolding events in the order N, O, P, Q, R, S. Once each of those events has happened, it doesn't get undone. If we have another planet which is moving relative to the first planet and we again have a rocket repeatedly leaving it and returning to it, again we have a series of reunion points which we could label on the diagram as N', O', P', Q', R', S', etc., and again these events can't be undone once they've happened.

If points N and N' are the same Spacetime location, we have an unfolding of events in which events N and N' must happen simultaneously. What happens after that though? The other events must unfold, and the progression of events along those two lines is never undone. If you freeze the process for a moment and change frame, you will appear to undo some of the events on one line and cause others to happen on the other line that hadn't happened before, but the real universe can't change in such a way. Mode 3 of my diagram shows a universe that doesn't change when you change frame (because it has a preferred frame), while mode 2 shows a universe which does change. Mode 2 changes the frame it uses to do all the calculations and has to run time forwards for some events and backwards for others in order to resynchronise events for the new frame. The real universe can't behave that way as it is not allowed to make happened events unhappen. So, what mechanism is the universe using to control the unfolding of events? Is it using a preferred frame? If so, it has a preferred frame. Mode 2 is banned, and you reject mode 3 because it has a preferred frame, so what are you left with? Mode 1 is your only other option, and it leads to event-meshing failures, as the interactive diagram shows. It is possible though with a block universe to brush the construction phase of the block under the carpet and just have the whole thing exist eternally such that changing frame makes no change to the block, but the cost of that is that the block was never constructed in order of causation and the apparent patterns of causation written all through it are therefore fake. For the causation to be real, you have to allow the block to be generated in order of causation, at which point it has to be built with the help not only of an added Newtonian time, but with a preferred frame of reference. [Even when event-meshing failures occur, there has to be a preferred frame to decide which paths provide shortcuts into the future - this isn't obvious because the same events appear to happen at the same time with mode 1 of the interactive diagram regardless of which frame you select, but the distances through the space dimension vary and they are crucial to the mechanism needed to coordinate events.]

Quote
I've read and reread the paper at 'Magic' to have a better understanding of what it says. Where did these ideas about event meshing originate?

They come directly out of the idea that time never runs slow on any path (because time can't really run slower on one path than any other unless you have a preferred frame) - if you run the model on that basis, you get event-meshing failures all over the place. [The diagram still has to apply a preferred frame as a mechanism though - if you remove that too, you hit another contradiction issue where all paths have to be taking greater shortcuts into the future than all other paths, and that simply won't compute.]

I've issued a challenge to all the world's experts in relativity, but they just run away from it - all I've asked them to do is explain how SR can be simulated without cheating (by using a preferred frame). There is only one way of doing it, but it only works with a block universe where you create the block under different rules, then brush that construction phase under the carpet and assert that the block is eternal, and then the SR model appears to work perfectly within that eternal block, but this simply shifts the problem to the construction phase. Without the construction phase, the model has no role for causation in it because it only accounts for a universe which exists fully formed by magic without ever having been created in order of causation, so any model which seeks to describe the real universe needs to cover that construction phase. There's a very limited range of possible ways of doing it, and I've covered them all in my three modes - anything else is just a variation on one of those modes with extra complications added to it for the sake of obfuscation.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/07/2017 22:41:54
Quote from: David
If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.

That is not a relativity claim at all. With two synchronized clocks and two observers each observer can view the other's clock as being behind their own. That is just simultaneity of relativity.

I'm not talking about what people see, but about what the universe actually does to the clocks. In a case where clock A is ticking twice as fast as clock B because clock A is not moving, astronaut A calculates that clock B is ticking half as often as clock A (and happens to be right because he not only thinks he is stationary, but actually is stationary), but if astronaut B decides that he's stationary and calculates that clock A is ticking half as often as clock B, his calculation is based on an error because he is not stationary.

Quote
All views are equally valid. This is only the truth because no view is valid.

No - only one view is correct, but no one can know which one it is because the universe keeps it a secret.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/07/2017 23:42:48
I can't figure out the simplicity. I've been on the net for ten years without anybody being able to help me understand SR, and a simple simulation did the job in two days. Maybe Einstein would have changed his mind about simplicity if he had seen what I saw. It is one thing to imagine the motion of light through the moving interferometer, but it is another one to see it, especially when it is moving along the moving telescope. The other possibility is that I am completely dumb, and it aches. :0)

I'm quite sure that Einstein would not have shifted position at all because he would already have understood everything that my interactive MM diagrams show. There's clearly something else going on which makes most people tolerate contradictions which they ought to be pouncing on and using to reject SR, but they are fault-blind. You'd think the interactive diagram which simulates three Spacetime models would have a powerful impact on them, but no - they just feel puzzled and walk away from it, failing to understand that they've just seen the full range of what's possible and the faults that occur in the first two modes. You'd think the interactive exam would then help them pin things down so that they can work out why they object to what they've been shown, but no - again they just feel puzzled and walk away. You can rarely force people to understand things, and because they don't understand it, they simply assume it's wrong on the basis that it goes against their teaching. None of them can write a simulation of it that isn't based squarely on the methods of one of my three modes, but armies of people (both qualified and unqualified) who have failed to understand the issue insist that they are right and assert that I don't understand relativity. However, the real qualifications don't come on paper, but from having a genuine understanding of the issue, and that can be determined for those who care about truth by looking at who is able to program simulations that explore how far you have to deviate from the model if you're ever going to be able to run it (and get it to behave rationally), and that's something very few people have even stopped to think about. No one who believes time never runs slower on one path than any other should be able to look at mode 1 and not immediately see that there's a serious problem for them with event-meshing failure. No one who looks at mode 2 should be left in any doubt that it leads to events happening and unhappening whenever they change frame and that this can only be tolerated in the real universe by people who believe in magic. And anyone who disagrees with my conclusions and who thinks he knows better is logically required to explain where the interactive "exam" claimed he has failed it, but they aren't prepared to do this because to fail on any of those questions would make them look ridiculous. I really thought they'd finally see the light and start accepting the argument as the proof that it is, but they just slink away in silence instead, clinging fast to their religious belief.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 15/07/2017 12:53:45
No one who believes time never runs slower on one path than any other should be able to look at mode 1 and not immediately see that there's a serious problem for them with event-meshing failure. No one who looks at mode 2 should be left in any doubt that it leads to events happening and unhappening whenever they change frame and that this can only be tolerated in the real universe by people who believe in magic. And anyone who disagrees with my conclusions and who thinks he knows better is logically required to explain where the interactive "exam" claimed he has failed it, but they aren't prepared to do this because to fail on any of those questions would make them look ridiculous. I really thought they'd finally see the light and start accepting the argument as the proof that it is, but they just slink away in silence instead, clinging fast to their religious belief.

Your definition of time for relativity might be at fault. Your claims that time has a past and future in classic relativity is an opinion I do not share. This would be necessary for event meshing problems in relativity. Speeds and distances change in measurements. You are not going to measure the same distance at 0.87c as you would with 0.5c. Your measuring sticks increase with velocity when you are on board the ship. It's not just time that slows. The distance of the measuring stick increases to match the extra time of your slowed down clock. Everything is magnified visually. This is the issue you might not consider in SR. Everything resides in the same present.....
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 15/07/2017 16:27:23
Quote from: David
You can rarely force people to understand things, and because they don't understand it, they simply assume it's wrong on the basis that it goes against their teaching.
I think I know why people resist to change, but you don't believe I'm right, so you don't understand what I mean (just teasing you a bit :0). Facing change, we're all believers, and it must be so if the world is to keep going ahead. Only two principles govern things: change and resistance to change. It is so from particles to mind. Species could not evolve, thus change, if they did not resist to the changes in their environment. Atoms could not accelerate, thus get speed, if they had no mass, thus no resistance to change. Neurons could not get more information if they did not resist to change the ones they already have. And finally, we could not change our own ideas if we did not resist to others' ideas.

It's the general idea that pops out of my small steps' theory, and it may even be more important than the steps themselves if it is right, because it is more universal. Apart not applying to information itself, it applies to everything that changes, so to everything that exists. The reason? The limited speed the information can travel to keep things going on at the smallest scale. Mass is a virus that transmits constantly from particles to bodies to species to minds, and only chance can overcome it. It's only by chance that species evolve, and it's also only by chance that our ideas evolve. You had your intuition by chance, and I was lucky I found you. If people ever change their mind about LET, it will be by chance, because nothing can change without being favored by chance. That was my birthday sermon, so I'm allowed to say anything: 71 and still tempting my chance every second! :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/07/2017 23:50:55
Your definition of time for relativity might be at fault. Your claims that time has a past and future in classic relativity is an opinion I do not share.

Time is tied tightly to causality, and causality is based on a process in which the state of caused things is determined by the causes. There is an order of such events which runs, and it runs in one direction only. The causes come first, before their effects. When an event happens, all the events that fed into it causally are necessarily previous events which happened in the past, while all the events which have yet to happen are in the future.

Quote
Everything resides in the same present

If you deny the existence of the past of an event by calling all the causation that fed into that event "present", you are inadvertently throwing out the order of events and thereby destroying the causality. It may be possible to throw out the word "time" though and just use the word "causality" instead, although that would lead to confusion when the cause-and-effect aspect isn't being referred to, but it may still be a good exercise in thinking when trying to understand the constraints of time. So, when you say that everything resides in the same present, that would need to be translated into the following: everything happens at the same point in the order of events. That destroys the order of causation, so basing a theory on that claim is clearly not going to get you very far.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 17/07/2017 17:31:26
David Cooper

Quote
What you're failing to get is that the universe has to do something specific to coordinate the unfolding of events,
This is your personal interpretation, no currently accepted theory requires this. Is this part of a predestination world?

Quote
and it can't have clock A ticking faster than clock B while at the same time having clock B ticking faster than clock A. If it does one of those, it cannot be doing both.
Then you truly don't understand SR based on your replies. The relativistic expressions are the classical expressions modified by the effects of time dilation for both mutual observers, and are therefore reciprocal or symmetrical.
A observes the B-clock moving past at v, and B observes the A-clock moving past at v, i.e. both in the same initial conditions, so why shouldn't each see the same clock behavior.
Each observer perceives a changed frequency of the other clock, increase or decrease, depending on approaching or receding, but perception (look up the word) is reality confined to the mind. The A and B clock rates have not changed.
In addition, time does not cause anything, that's why it's recorded AFTER the event occurs.
If a falling object is filmed next to a pole with elevation marks, with a high speed camera, which notes the time on each frame, the film is analyzed to determine the relation of height to time, to calculate rate of fall. This does not imply time caused the object to fall, since we know gravity does that. Time is only a gage/tool to record an order to the sequence of events and predict future results. If you analyze how humans use 'time' it explains itself.
Quote
If points N and N' are the same Spacetime location, we have an unfolding of events in which events N and N' must happen simultaneously. What happens after that though? The other events must unfold, and the progression of events along those two lines is never undone. If you freeze the process for a moment and change frame,
With no teleportation, you could communicate with the primed frame via light, and find its  description of events is different, the same sequence of events happen but with different times and locations.
Ten people in a circle around a house, with cameras. Each picture is a different perspective of the house, since no two people can be in the same location. Each picture is a real and valid representation of the one house.

The events you described are all humanly directed, planned and executed and dependent on consistent behavior of the elements of the universal, i.e. the 'laws'. Animal and plant life depend on the genetic programs and the 'laws', The remaining inanimate matter depends only on  the 'laws'. At this level there is no evidence of coordination or purpose beyond the 'laws'. There is randomness like thermal energy and quantum probabilities, which are welcome, by providing diversity vs monotony. Imagine if all mountains looked the same, and all lakes were the same, etc.

Quote
They come directly out of the idea that time never runs slow on any path (because time can't really run slower on one path than any other unless you have a preferred frame)
You believe in a universal independent  time, where SR requires a subjective time..
In a real world experiment, muons moving in a storage ring at .999c experienced time dilation compared to muons at rest in the lab. The results;
1. an example of the 'twin' scenario, an aging difference,
2. confirmation of the 'clock hypothesis', the tick rate depends on speed and not on acceleration (10^19 g in the storage ring).
3. no event meshing issues, both batches of muons were always present in the lab.
Quote
See if you can find any physicists who think that relativity can't be simulated.
I didn't say it can't. A pilot can practice flying in a simulator, but he doesn't go anywhere.
Quote
(thereby making things happen and unhappen when the frame is changed [which you agree that we can't allow the real universe to do]),
I have never seen this issue mentioned anywhere, and why I questioned its origin.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 17/07/2017 21:24:53
Quote
What you're failing to get is that the universe has to do something specific to coordinate the unfolding of events,
This is your personal interpretation, no currently accepted theory requires this. Is this part of a predestination world?

I don't know what you mean by "predestination world", but the unfolding of events has to be coordinated, meaning that it must be in run in some systematic manner. With the "twins paradox", for example, if the clock with the travelling twin is supposed to tick more slowly on one leg of a journey than the stay-at-home twin's clock and again tick more slowly on the second leg, that can't just happen by magic - it has to be controlled by something. Likewise, if it ticks more quickly on the first leg and more slowly on the second let, that likewise must be coordinated by something. Any theory which doesn't have a mechanism of some kind for this is left relying on magic to do this vital job. If you don't like the idea of clocks running slow, then we have to use a different SR model and replace the idea of clocks ticking faster or slower with clocks taking shortcuts into the future, or shorter shortcuts, or less short shortcuts, etc., but again this needs a system to control which paths are shortcuts over which other paths. There is always an issue of this kind with any SR model you choose to use, unless you go for the eternal static block universe model in which there is no movement at all and all the apparent causality written through it is fake.

Quote
Quote
and it can't have clock A ticking faster than clock B while at the same time having clock B ticking faster than clock A. If it does one of those, it cannot be doing both.
Then you truly don't understand SR based on your replies. The relativistic expressions are the classical expressions modified by the effects of time dilation for both mutual observers, and are therefore reciprocal or symmetrical.

No - you're the one who doesn't understand SR because you still can't see it's defects (the contradictions that are generated from it), and you've failed to see how each of the range of different incompatible models which pose as SR suffer from a fatal flaw, while Einsteinists pretend they have a single viable model. They don't - they point to a Lorentz-invariant model to remove the contradictions, then point to a Lorentz-variant model to allow causality to act.

Quote
A observes the B-clock moving past at v, and B observes the A-clock moving past at v, i.e. both in the same initial conditions, so why shouldn't each see the same clock behavior.

That is not under dispute, so why are you bringing it up? It shows that you haven't managed to follow the argument.

Quote
Each observer perceives a changed frequency of the other clock, increase or decrease, depending on approaching or receding, but perception (look up the word) is reality confined to the mind. The A and B clock rates have not changed.

Again that is beside the point. What we're interested in is the control mechanism by which a clock might tick more quickly or slowly than another, or by which it might take a shorter or longer path into the future.

Quote
In addition, time does not cause anything, that's why it's recorded AFTER the event occurs.

Time and the progress of causation go hand in hand together. A process is a series of steps in which earlier steps come before later steps and later steps come after previous steps. Look at the words used there: earlier, before, later, after - these are time words being used to describe an unfolding process of cause-and-effect events. We can run long strings of cause-and-effect processes inside our rockets as we run the "twins paradox" experiment, thereby showing that time must unfold for all those events in the same way as the processes unfold. Time and process are tightly coupled, to the point of being inseparable.

Quote
With no teleportation, you could communicate with the primed frame via light, and find its  description of events is different, the same sequence of events happen but with different times and locations.
Ten people in a circle around a house, with cameras. Each picture is a different perspective of the house, since no two people can be in the same location. Each picture is a real and valid representation of the one house.

Yes, you can do all of that and tie all the action to a single frame of reference with everything making sense, and you can choose any frame you like. If you do it with two different frames, both of them will make sense, but they will account for what's happened in ways that contradict each other because they set different different one-way speeds of light across objects. [Note that "different different" is not a mistake.]

Quote
The events you described are all humanly directed, planned and executed and dependent on consistent behavior of the elements of the universal, i.e. the 'laws'. Animal and plant life depend on the genetic programs and the 'laws', The remaining inanimate matter depends only on  the 'laws'. At this level there is no evidence of coordination or purpose beyond the 'laws'. There is randomness like thermal energy and quantum probabilities, which are welcome, by providing diversity vs monotony. Imagine if all mountains looked the same, and all lakes were the same, etc.

Wherever there is cause and effect, the cause has to run before the effect. You can't generate the effect first and then generate the cause (and no one suggests that you can), but you also can't generate the effect and cause at the same step in the process. When you fire a gun and the bullet smashes a glass plate, leading to a fragment of the plate embedding itself in an apple, the trigger of the gun was not pulled at the same step in the process as the shard of glass hits the apple. There is a chain of events which have an order with each causing or affecting the one that follows it. The process has to be coordinated, and time is necessarily dragged into that coordination and locked to it.

Quote
Quote
They come directly out of the idea that time never runs slow on any path (because time can't really run slower on one path than any other unless you have a preferred frame)
You believe in a universal independent  time, where SR requires a subjective time..

What I believe is irrelevant to my attempts to run SR models. The point is to run the model by its own rules, and if it doesn't function under its own rules, it's a broken theory. I have in such cases shown how you can get modified versions of such broken models to function by adding things to them that are not part of the original model, but pure SR is represented by model 0 (the eternal static block universe) in which there is zero functionality and causation cannot be real, and model 2 where infinite numbers of contradictions are generated and where events happen and unhappen as you change frame.

Quote
In a real world experiment, muons moving in a storage ring at .999c experienced time dilation compared to muons at rest in the lab. The results;
1. an example of the 'twin' scenario, an aging difference,
2. confirmation of the 'clock hypothesis', the tick rate depends on speed and not on acceleration (10^19 g in the storage ring).
3. no event meshing issues, both batches of muons were always present in the lab.

What's the point of all that? 1 and 2 are inevitable both with SR and LET, and with 3, of course you won't get event-meshing failures in the real universe or be able to sustain a memory of them if you do see any, either because the real universe has mechanisms to coordinate the unfolding of events so that event-meshing failures don't happen, or (much less likely) because they do happen and did occur in the lab until history was rewritten a moment later and they disappeared along with all records of the initial failure.

Quote
Quote
See if you can find any physicists who think that relativity can't be simulated.
I didn't say it can't. A pilot can practice flying in a simulator, but he doesn't go anywhere.

My point is that they all think it can be simulated, so my challenge to them (and anyone else who thinks they can hack it) is to show how. Model 0 "works", but you have to create the eternal block first under different physics, and if you do that, it's the physics of the construction phase that counts, because the imagined subsequent physics of the fossilised block is entirely superfluous. Model 2 "works", but it allows events to happen, then unhappen and rehappen repeatedly as the frame is changed, and the real universe cannot be allowed to do that.

Quote
I have never seen this issue mentioned anywhere, and why I questioned its origin.

The fact that you've never seen it mentioned anywhere shows that very few people have ever bothered to push SR hard enough to see where it breaks. The existence of the eternal static 4D block universe model shows though that some SR experts have explored SR further than others in order to get rid of the contradictions, but they've then failed to recognise that they've killed off all possible role for causality. It's when you try to generate the block that you find event-meshing failures, and of course they don't want to discuss that problem because they don't want their fig leaf to fall off.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 18/07/2017 23:56:23
Time and the progress of causation go hand in hand together. A process is a series of steps in which earlier steps come before later steps and later steps come after previous steps. Look at the words used there: earlier, before, later, after - these are time words being used to describe an unfolding process of cause-and-effect events. We can run long strings of cause-and-effect processes inside our rockets as we run the "twins paradox" experiment, thereby showing that time must unfold for all those events in the same way as the processes unfold. Time and process are tightly coupled, to the point of being inseparable.

I'm now going to expand on that. Imagine a light clock where a light pulse is sent from one end to the other, then it's detected at the far end and its frequency is measured. A pulse of light is then send back the other way with a new light frequency based both on the frequency of the received light pulse and a random number generated by running a complex program (which can take some genuinely random values as inputs - there are plenty of ways of doing this). Back at the first end of the light clock, the same thing is done there when that light pulse arrives, so each light pulse has a new light frequency which is calculated just before it is sent out and which cannot be predicted in advance. This provides us with a long chain of cause-and-effect steps which have to run through in series and which cannot be run simultaneously. All clocks used in any thought experiment like the "twins paradox" can be of this type, so we can always tie time very tightly to cause-and-effect processes - time and process both run, and they run in sync with each other. [Note that the generation of the next random number can be done just after the latest pulse of light is sent out, so there is no significant delay in calculating the next frequency of light to use after receiving a pulse - it will always make the final adjustment using the same number of computer clock cycles, leading to perfect spacings between the light clock's ticks. We can also make the calculations so intensive though that they only just complete each time as the next light pulse is received. Another thing we could do is add clear directionality into the process to make sure it can only be run forwards and not backwards, so we could have events where objects like china plates are smashed and a randomly-selected fragment is weighed each time to generate a number to feed into the computation, then all the fragments are ground into dust.]

Einsteinists like to play games with time, making out that it doesn't run, or that it behaves in weird ways that mean people have to throw out all they thought they knew about time and start again, but the games are just obfuscation. They confuse people until they simply give up trying to understand what time is and instead conform to the required beliefs imposed on them in order to avoid being labelled as stupid. Fortunately though, there is a way to understand time more clearly if you look instead at process. With our special light clocks (as described in the previous paragraph), we now have long cause-and-effect chains made up of steps where each step clearly must happen before the next, and we can compare the rates of these steps for different clocks. It's already easy to see that process and time are almost the same thing, but what we're doing with our special light clocks involves unpredictable behaviour of a kind you don't normally see with a clock (because the frequency of the light used for the pulses cannot be predicted in advance). We have complex process ticking on different paths at different relative rates. We therefore no longer need to discuss time, but can discuss everything in relation to process instead. While people are able to get away with all manner of obfuscating waffle about time, that kind of tactic simply won't work with process.

So, in generating the future from the past, a universe (or simulation of a universe) has to coordinate all the processes running on different paths. With the "twins paradox", we can have a final step that occurs at the moment of reunion of the twins where we take the frequency of light of the latest light pulses generated by their clocks and use them to produce a new value. We can't produce that new value unless we have access to the latest value from each of the clocks. If you fail to coordinate the action on different paths, what happens if you're ready to process that step but one of the players hasn't arrived yet (as the process on his/her path hasn't reached the required step to make the next step possible)? More steps need to have been processed on one path than the other if they are to be at the right point for the final shared step to be processed, and there should be no long delay for one path while the other catches up with its processing - they should both run straight on into that final step without either of them being switched into any kind of wait state. The only way to do the coordination and avoid any such waiting is by using a preferred frame mechanism. Without that, you will have event meshing failures where the final step cannot be made because one of the players is late in getting there. Remember that the universe itself doesn't know that the twins are supposed to meet up there, so it can't know if anything is late in arriving at a Spacetime location - it must just barge straight on with processing whatever is there. We could have another player who turns up and prevents the twins from being united, and we won't know what actually happens there until it all happens, so how can there be an option for the universe to wait if it doesn't know if any latecomers are on the way? With a preferred-frame mechanism it's easy - anything that can turn up at a Spacetime location must arrive there together with everything else that can reach that location, and then they can all interact without any delay. Without that mechanism, things will simply arrive when they arrive, so there can be changing action at a single location in Spacetime. The first thing that happens there is that only one player has turned up, so the final step can't happen and something different happens instead. Then that has to be undone and replaced when the other twin arrives and the final step is performed. But then that is undone as a third player turns up and prevents the twins meeting up. That is event-meshing failure, and it can't be avoided unless you have a systematic way of coordinating the unfolding of action on different paths. Those on the SR side who have never worked out how to simulate relativity with a computer program are not in a position to claim expertise in this subject - they simply don't understand the problem. Those who have worked out how to simulate it but who have relied on a preferred-frame mechanism are also not in a position to claim that SR works without a preferred frame. I don't care what qualifications they might have - if they can't show how to simulate SR under SR's own rules alone, their qualifications are inadequate for them to claim expertise in this subject. (Note that simulations of "events" in a ready-made eternal static block universe don't hack it either because they have killed causation - they need to account for the full generation of the block in past to future order, running through all the processes in the order of causation and coordinating the action properly.)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 19/07/2017 12:33:38
Everything is in the present it does not matter about our view. There is no such thing as time travel because time is the energy of motion as it relates to c.

David

You need to consider the issue of clocks ticking the same rate equidistant from the center of gravity and how it relates to the view of contraction. You are ignoring the issue in order to maintain physical contraction. The rotation of the Earth around the sun seems not to affect the tick rate of clocks on the Earth. So locally light has its own zero point return position in space for timing. Rotating Earth with the rotation around the sun and against the rotation around the sun has no affect on tick rate for timing. Now let's look at the MMX in that light (no pun intended).
North and south directions we only have Simultaneity of Relativity for distance so the timing and distance are exactly the same in either direction. Now the East and West directions are slightly different for distance measurements. But it is an affect of light being independent of the source that measured a different distance in each direction. It can be measured as (c+v) and (c-v) but this has nothing to do with the speed of light not being constant.

You are merely measuring the light distance not the physical distance through space. Lets take a distance of light and say it is 20ns shorter in the East to West direction which is about 20 feet for light. Now we go back and find it to be 20ns longer which is regaining the 20 feet we lost. There is just an offset in the East and West direction because light returns to the same position it left. Light can only count distance on Earth and not space. So locally light distance is the same when measuring the two way distance for light in any direction for the same energy use. Unlike the positions in space that do not return to the same position by energy use. So clocks on earth tick at the same rate in two way cycles which is what we use for timing.

You can maintain your understanding of physical contracting solids with velocity but it is based on incorrect use of data. Your understanding is in between SR and GR same as Einstein's was until he understood GR equidistance from the center of gravity and tick rates. It affects timing distances vs. energy use. It might be different in space between galaxies. Apparently gravity rotates with Galaxies similar to suns and planets.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 19/07/2017 16:54:59
David Cooper
Quote
With the "twins paradox", for example, if the clock with the travelling twin is supposed to tick more slowly on one leg of a journey than the stay-at-home twin's clock and again tick more slowly on the second leg, that can't just happen by magic - it has to be controlled by something.
-----
SR gives an explanation in terms of basic physics. It's a motion induced phenomenon in combination with a constant and independent light speed. The process of 'ticking' slows when the clock moves past an observer. If you understand how the light clock works, you should know this. Couple this with altered perception (chemical processes slowing)  which prevents the observer from detecting his slow clock, and you have time dilation. As for the reuniting, that's coordinated by the anauts moving with the correct velocity, i.e. under human control.

Quote
If you do it with two different frames, both of them will make sense, but they will account for what's happened in ways that contradict each other because they set different different one-way speeds of light across objects.
_____
In your example of anauts A and B separating at speed v, each will observe the other clock ticking slower than their own. That is a contradiction only if considered simultaneously. It's not A and B, it's A or B. Each can assume a pseudo rest frame with the other moving and see the doppler effect. You don't even need two drawings, just swap pilots.
Light has a constant propagation speed c in SR. It is always measured as c in all frames.

Quote
Wherever there is cause and effect, the cause has to run before the effect. You can't generate the effect first and then generate the cause (and no one suggests that you can), but you also can't generate the effect and cause at the same step in the process. When you fire a gun and the bullet smashes a glass plate, leading to a fragment of the plate embedding itself in an apple, the trigger of the gun was not pulled at the same step in the process as the shard of glass hits the apple. There is a chain of events which have an order with each causing or affecting the one that follows it. The process has to be coordinated, and time is necessarily dragged into that coordination and locked to it
------
That's common knowledge even for people not interested in science. The indefinite causal chain is not always true, specifically when human choice is involved. You keep using examples of events planned and executed via human control, which answers your own question. If the person firing the gun misses the plate, the chain of causality ends That element was under human control, not time. I don't object to the idea of an objective 'time', it just hasn't been discovered yet.

I do reject any type of block universe, so no point in referring to it.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/07/2017 22:34:54
Everything is in the present it does not matter about our view.

The past is not present.

Quote
There is no such thing as time travel because time is the energy of motion as it relates to c.

There is time travel into the future - it's impossible not to travel that way with time.

Quote
You need to consider the issue of clocks ticking the same rate equidistant from the center of gravity and how it relates to the view of contraction. You are ignoring the issue in order to maintain physical contraction.

What issue am I ignoring? If they're moving, they're contracted regardless of how far they are from anything.

Quote
The rotation of the Earth around the sun seems not to affect the tick rate of clocks on the Earth.

How would you know? While the ticking rate changes, your inability to notice it changing hides the change.

Quote
So locally light has its own zero point return position in space for timing. Rotating Earth with the rotation around the sun and against the rotation around the sun has no affect on tick rate for timing.

How can you tell? If the galaxy's moving at relativistic speed, which it could be, then clocks on the Earth will be running slow one way and a bit less slow the other way.

Quote
Now let's look at the MMX in that light (no pun intended).
North and south directions we only have Simultaneity of Relativity for distance so the timing and distance are exactly the same in either direction. Now the East and West directions are slightly different for distance measurements. But it is an affect of light being independent of the source that measured a different distance in each direction. It can be measured as (c+v) and (c-v) but this has nothing to do with the speed of light not being constant.

The MMX uses such short arms that you needn't bother to think about the Earth rotating. You can simply take the MMX apparatus to be moving on a straight line because it will behave just like a copy of itself that is moving in a straight line (at a tangent to the Earth). The arm aligned with that straight line will have to contract.

Quote
You are merely measuring the light distance not the physical distance through space. Lets take a distance of light and say it is 20ns shorter in the East to West direction which is about 20 feet for light. Now we go back and find it to be 20ns longer which is regaining the 20 feet we lost. There is just an offset in the East and West direction because light returns to the same position it left. Light can only count distance on Earth and not space. So locally light distance is the same when measuring the two way distance for light in any direction for the same energy use. Unlike the positions in space that do not return to the same position by energy use. So clocks on earth tick at the same rate in two way cycles which is what we use for timing.

I don't know how tangled your thinking is on this, but if you send the MMX apparatus along a tangent to the Earth, the arm aligned with that path will be length-contracted all the way as it follows that path, and when it passes an MMX fixed to the Earth's surface that is co-moving with it for a moment, it will behave identically to it. The only significant complication is that the speed of light will be lower as the MMX apparatus following the tangent gets deeper into the Earth's gravity well, so it will function more slowly.

Quote
You can maintain your understanding of physical contracting solids with velocity but it is based on incorrect use of data.

Without length-contraction, particle accelerators could accelerate things to speeds greater than c. It's relativistic mass that prevents that happening, and relativistic mass drives length-contraction.

Quote
Your understanding is in between SR and GR same as Einstein's was until he understood GR equidistance from the center of gravity and tick rates.

I don't think so. Bringing gravity into things doesn't stop length-contraction happening. It just provides another mechanism for slowing clocks which is additional to the speed of movement mechanism.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/07/2017 23:14:04
SR gives an explanation in terms of basic physics. It's a motion induced phenomenon in combination with a constant and independent light speed. The process of 'ticking' slows when the clock moves past an observer. If you understand how the light clock works, you should know this. Couple this with altered perception (chemical processes slowing)  which prevents the observer from detecting his slow clock, and you have time dilation.

And that's a preferred-frame mechanism. If a simulation runs using a preferred frame, it is not running SR. If the universe runs using a preferred frame, it is not running SR either.

Quote
As for the reuniting, that's coordinated by the anauts moving with the correct velocity, i.e. under human control.

If you are running a Spacetime model which doesn't slow time on any path compared with any other path, there will be event-meshing failures where things that expect to meet up don't. To avoid such failures, the unfolding of events has to be coordinated carefully for different paths using a mechanism of some kind other than magic such that some clocks tick slower than others. SR provides no mechanism for this and therefore leaves that task to magic.

Quote
In your example of anauts A and B separating at speed v, each will observe the other clock ticking slower than their own. That is a contradiction only if considered simultaneously. It's not A and B, it's A or B. Each can assume a pseudo rest frame with the other moving and see the doppler effect. You don't even need two drawings, just swap pilots.

The universe can only do one thing - it cannot speed up the ticking of a clock while at the same time slowing it down. Can you not understand the difference between saying that clock A might be ticking more slowly or might be ticking more quickly than clock B, and saying that clock A is both ticking more slowly and ticking more quickly than clock B? The first claim is reasonable, but the second one is irrational. The accounts generated by using one frame of reference are one theory of what happened, and the accounts generated by a different frame comprise a different theory of events, and these two theories cannot both be true. That is why SR gets pushed into the eternal block model where these contradictions finally disappear (but where causality is lost in the process, or, to be more accurate, lost in the lack of process).

Quote
Light has a constant propagation speed c in SR. It is always measured as c in all frames.

And every change of frame changes the speed of light in different directions through all the other frames.

Quote
That's common knowledge even for people not interested in science.

Indeed, but you need to understand its importance here. The first important thing about it is that there are processes that must be run, killing the static block model because it fails to account for its construction, but it also puts severe constraints on how a simulation must be done so that it doesn't do anything the real universe can't do. The universe is not allowed to process later events in a chain of causation before earlier ones - it must process them all in order, and once those events have been processed, they must not be unprocessed. That means that if you jump ahead with the calculations to simulate the reunion of the twins, you can't know what the final value will be for the frequencies of light of the light pulses in their clocks because you've failed to process all the events that allow you to determine that. By putting these clear chains of causation which can't be predicted without running through the whole process, I force people to see that they can't just jump ahead - they have to run the processes on all paths properly and stop cheating. They need to coordinate the processing of those different paths too, and when they're forced to do this, they are unable to hide any cheating - the fact they're using a preferred frame becomes impossible for them to ignore and they have to stop fooling themselves.

Quote
The indefinite causal chain is not always true, specifically when human choice is involved. You keep using examples of events planned and executed via human control, which answers your own question. If the person firing the gun misses the plate, the chain of causality ends That element was under human control, not time. I don't object to the idea of an objective 'time', it just hasn't been discovered yet.

There is always a chain of causation. If something is moving, it's arrival in a new location is caused by it leaving its previous location, whereas if it isn't moving, it's continuing to be in the same location is caused by it not moving out of that location. What I'm doing though is making the chains of causation more clear so that they can't be ignored by people who want to simulate relativity. There are rules which they should not be allowed to break, and this forces them to stay within the rules. The cosmologist I mention on my page claimed that his bit of maths was a simulation, but it was just calculations that lead to the drawing of a Spacetime diagram without addressing the issue of process (or progression/unfolding of events). By adding these special light clocks where using a complex process to keep changing the frequency of the light in the light pulses (this doesn't change the time taken for a tick), I can ban him from jumping ahead to calculate the reunion point and think he's done the job - he now has to run the entire process for both paths instead, and he has to coordinate the relative rates at which the processing is done, or by introducing new physics to specify when and why the processing should halt and wait for other paths to catch up.

Quote
I do reject any type of block universe, so no point in referring to it.

I have to refer to it - it's the only kind of model that can remove the preferred frame from its mechanism, but at the cost that it can never be generated and it renders all causation a fiction.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/07/2017 12:30:27
The past is not present

Past is just motions from the past. Future is just motions that will happen. We travel in the present. Not the past and not the future. The entire universe travels in the present. There is no time travel!!!

 
There is time travel into the future - it's impossible not to travel that way with time.

That's a man made concept you are using to claim SR is incorrect. We only travel in the present with the motion of the present changing. You are using time travel issues that are not part of reality.


What issue am I ignoring? If they're moving, they're contracted regardless of how far they are from anything

No on Earth we have an offset for the two way measurement of light. That is not contraction.

How would you know? While the ticking rate changes, your inability to notice it changing hides the change.

No with our measurement techniques we know all clocks tick at the same rate regardless of the rotation around the sun by direction of the spin of the Earth. The gravitational energy position we reside in may affect the overall tick rates of our clocks but on Earth they all tick at the same rate equidistant from the center of gravity.

 
How can you tell? If the galaxy's moving at relativistic speed, which it could be, then clocks on the Earth will be running slow one way and a bit less slow the other way.

Because it is an observed fact all clocks tick the same at sea level.

The MMX uses such short arms that you needn't bother to think about the Earth rotating. You can simply take the MMX apparatus to be moving on a straight line because it will behave just like a copy of itself that is moving in a straight line (at a tangent to the Earth). The arm aligned with that straight line will have to contract.

Anytime some one says you needn't bother to think they are not in a position to learn. You cannot take it to be going in a straight line. The energy usage is different for a straight line in space because clocks tick at the same rate on the Earth at sea level. GR controlled tick rate is a different animal.


I don't know how tangled your thinking is on this, but if you send the MMX apparatus along a tangent to the Earth, the arm aligned with that path will be length-contracted all the way as it follows that path, and when it passes an MMX fixed to the Earth's surface that is co-moving with it for a moment, it will behave identically to it. The only significant complication is that the speed of light will be lower as the MMX apparatus following the tangent gets deeper into the Earth's gravity well, so it will function more slowly.

No it will not. Movement beyond the threshold of Earths gravitational influence as a tangent has a different affect than the curve of sea level.


Without length-contraction, particle accelerators could accelerate things to speeds greater than c. It's relativistic mass that prevents that happening, and relativistic mass drives length-contraction.

Particle accelerators can not get mass to go faster than c because c is the fundamental energy of motion. The only way to move faster than c is when mass accelerates faster than the speed of light and creates a BH.


I don't think so. Bringing gravity into things doesn't stop length-contraction happening. It just provides another mechanism for slowing clocks which is additional to the speed of movement mechanism.

All of this is based on believing clocks do not tick at the same rate at sea level. There is an offset in the two way speed of light measurement. That is not contraction. The offset can be measured with atomic clocks.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 20/07/2017 16:38:13
David Cooper #425
You're in denial, even when reading the answers.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/07/2017 20:26:04
There is time travel into the future - it's impossible not to travel that way with time.

That's a man made concept you are using to claim SR is incorrect. We only travel in the present with the motion of the present changing. You are using time travel issues that are not part of reality.

I'm not using that to claim SR is incorrect - I don't see any dispute between me and SR on this point, although there may be a dispute there between different SR fans.

Quote
What issue am I ignoring? If they're moving, they're contracted regardless of how far they are from anything

No on Earth we have an offset for the two way measurement of light. That is not contraction.

I have no idea what you're on about. What's the offset got to do with the price of fish, and who said whatever it is is a contradiction? You seem to have found some deeply unsound way to fool yourself into thinking you've eliminated length-contraction at the Earth's surface due to the rotation of the Earth, but that doesn't work, as you should realise if you picture the MMX apparatus moving along a tangent to the Earth such that it is co-moving for a moment with another set of MMX apparatus sitting there on the Earth's surface. They both have to function the same way if the speed of light in both is the same, and if it isn't the same, you've made superluminal communication possible. I don't have time to create more interactive diagrams to show you this, so you'll just have to wait until AGI can do that job for you.

Quote
Quote
Quote
The rotation of the Earth around the sun seems not to affect the tick rate of clocks on the Earth.

How would you know? While the ticking rate changes, your inability to notice it changing hides the change.

No with our measurement techniques we know all clocks tick at the same rate regardless of the rotation around the sun by direction of the spin of the Earth. The gravitational energy position we reside in may affect the overall tick rates of our clocks but on Earth they all tick at the same rate equidistant from the center of gravity.

As the Earth moves round the sun, its speed of travel through space will vary, leading to all those clocks slowing down and speeding up repeatedly. The same thing applies to the rotation of the Earth where again clocks can speed up and slow down in their movement through space, so they are not all ticking at the same rate unless you're going by the long term average.

Quote
How can you tell? If the galaxy's moving at relativistic speed, which it could be, then clocks on the Earth will be running slow one way and a bit less slow the other way.

Because it is an observed fact all clocks tick the same at sea level.

This is hopeless - you're just missing the point every time.

Quote
The MMX uses such short arms that you needn't bother to think about the Earth rotating. You can simply take the MMX apparatus to be moving on a straight line because it will behave just like a copy of itself that is moving in a straight line (at a tangent to the Earth). The arm aligned with that straight line will have to contract.

Anytime some one says you needn't bother to think they are not in a position to learn.

There's a massive difference between telling someone they "don't need to think" and telling them that they "don't need to think about x" (where "think about x" means "bring x into the calculations where it will have no impact of any significance").

Quote
You cannot take it to be going in a straight line. The energy usage is different for a straight line in space because clocks tick at the same rate on the Earth at sea level. GR controlled tick rate is a different animal.

You can and must take it to be going in a straight line because the deviation off the straight line is utterly insignificant. You cannot allow light to travel at different speeds in the two co-moving sets of MMX apparatus unless you're happy to allow superluminal communication. The photons in the two sets must keep exact pace with each other and the length-contraction on the set following the tangent must be matched by the length-contraction on the set sitting on the Earth's surface.

Quote
I don't know how tangled your thinking is on this, but if you send the MMX apparatus along a tangent to the Earth, the arm aligned with that path will be length-contracted all the way as it follows that path, and when it passes an MMX fixed to the Earth's surface that is co-moving with it for a moment, it will behave identically to it. The only significant complication is that the speed of light will be lower as the MMX apparatus following the tangent gets deeper into the Earth's gravity well, so it will function more slowly.

No it will not. Movement beyond the threshold of Earths gravitational influence as a tangent has a different affect than the curve of sea level.

You do realise, I hope, that I'm talking about a tangent to the Earth that brings the MMX following a straight line right down to the surface such that the two sets of apparatus are in the same place and moving in the same direction? What exactly is it that you imagine light does at the Earth's surface that can eliminate length-contraction from the MMX in this situation? Bear in mind that it takes light longer to complete a circuit eastwards than westwards, so it doesn't appear to be doing anything in any way exotic enough to eliminate the need for length-contraction to produce the null result.

Quote
All of this is based on believing clocks do not tick at the same rate at sea level.

I don't know how you imagine that has anything to do with it. Your thinking is really messed up.

Quote
There is an offset in the two way speed of light measurement. That is not contraction. The offset can be measured with atomic clocks.

I refer you to my reply above (starting with "You do realise..." - if you're going to get anywhere, you need to think about that issue. There are times in the MMX when the light must be going further one way than the other in order to complete the round trip, and that cannot be done at the same speed on the path aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus as on the perpendicular path. Until you understand that, you'll just continue to do some weird kind of voodoo instead of physics.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/07/2017 20:40:49
David Cooper #425
You're in denial, even when reading the answers.

In denial of what? I've shown that the SR model doesn't function adequately and you just tell me I'm in denial as if that magically fixes it! Show me how SR can function in a relativity simulation, and when you realise it's impossible to do that, explain how the universe can run SR when it's impossible to simulate it. The simulations use a preferred frame, and the universe must likewise use a preferred frame unless it runs on some special kind of magic that can't be simulated. You're the one who's in denial here, and so are all the others who think the same way because they've spent a century making a ludicrous assertion that they can't back up - they claim the SR model is functional, and yet it cannot function without running on a preferred frame, which means the only functional models they have are NOT SR (with the one exception of the eternal static block universe model which renders real causation impossible, replacing it with the mere illusion of causality).

Let me remind you:-

(1) A valid simulation (and the universe) must process (or make happen) events in order of causation, never jumping ahead and then jumping back again to fill in gaps.

(2) A valid simulation (and the universe) must not unprocess (or make unhappen) events once they have been done [which means the frame changes of mode 2 are banned as they cause events to unhappen].

(3) A valid simulation (and the universe) must coordinate the action on different paths in such a way as to avoid event-meshing failures [which are banned in SR], so it must impose rules on the relative rates to run the clock events (ticks) to ensure that all players arrive at Spacetime locations together such that the computation process for each path can run directly into the next shared step of the process without the processing of any of those paths being halted to allow the others to catch up.

The standard way to do the coordination is to use a preferred frame (either directly or under a pile of obfuscation), but that is not allowed in SR, so I want to see how SR handles this without a preferred frame and without bringing in any other mechanisms not specified for SR. I already know that this task is an impossible one, but they repeatedly claim they can do it while being completely incapable of showing how. All they can produce are simulations where they cheat by breaking the rules.

You (and I'm addressing all the SR preachers and their massive congregation of followers) have a duty to show your model functioning somewhere: you need to show that it allows causality to be real (by providing laws of physics that allow the generation of the future out of the past rather than using a magical, eternal block universe which was never constructed) and you need to to show that it does not depend on a preferred frame. Where is your demonstration of this? Where do you show off this functional SR model to the world? This is so important that you must actually have one somewhere if your theory is genuinely viable in some way. We're talking about physics here, so you should not be behaving like a church that refuses to show the world its impossible deity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 21/07/2017 13:01:28
The preferred frame is c. Not because it is at rest but because it is a limit that all SR is based. c=0 time on your clock. Which is a valid frame? All frames are equally valid which actually means no frame is valid. Light is not instantaneous but the present is instantaneous in a sense. Your simulations only account for the differences in time and not distance measurements. In SR both cycle timing and distances change together. You measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame. When your timing slows your measuring stick expands in SR. You are only looking at timing. You need to understand the full affect. Lets say Gods Eye is instantaneous not using light or measuring stick. There would be no need for relativity or simultaneity of relativity. In SR the Gamma term is the increase in distance of your measuring stick to match the change in timing. Try that in your simulations.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 21/07/2017 16:00:38
David Cooper #429
SR experiments are performed in the real world, they are not simulations. The results agree with the theory. Whenever the results are presented as a response to your questions, you deny/ignore them by repeating this fantasy notion about coordination and event meshing issues, etc. How would you prove an event never happened? Sounds silly doesn't it?  Did you ever consider your models may have errors? 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/07/2017 22:44:35
The preferred frame is c.

c is not a frame. It's a speed.

Quote
Your simulations only account for the differences in time and not distance measurements.

When you change frame on the 3-mode interactive diagram, you see the distances changing - they wouldn't function correctly if they didn't work on both time and distances.

Quote
In SR both cycle timing and distances change together.

As happens in my diagram.

Quote
You measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame.

Correct, and that means that every time you change frame, you change the speed of light across all the objects in the simulation relative to them.

Quote
When your timing slows your measuring stick expands in SR. You are only looking at timing. You need to understand the full affect.

You need to look at what I'm doing and describe that accurately instead of accusing me of failing to do things I'm doing.

Quote
Lets say Gods Eye is instantaneous not using light or measuring stick. There would be no need for relativity or simultaneity of relativity.

With the God view, you see all the action in a frame simultaneously without any communication delays, but the communication delays are still there for the objects displayed and there is no removal of the need for relativity - it is simply a different way of "viewing" the action.

Quote
In SR the Gamma term is the increase in distance of your measuring stick to match the change in timing. Try that in your simulations.

What kind of warping do you want to introduce to my simulations that will keep them the same shape as they already are? They are the right shape and I'm not going to mash them up to fit the requirements of anything that doesn't match up to the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/07/2017 23:42:36
SR experiments are performed in the real world, they are not simulations. The results agree with the theory.

Experiments don't show the mechanism. We can't detect the mechanism because relativity prevents us from determining the one-way speed of light relative to us. The results of experiments are the same regardless of which frame is (or comes closest to being) the absolute one.

Quote
Whenever the results are presented as a response to your questions, you deny/ignore them by repeating this fantasy notion about coordination and event meshing issues, etc.

What's the point of trying to use the results of experiments as a response when they shed no light on the issue in question? We already know that they are compatible with frame A being absolute and with frame B being absolute, because that's what everyone agrees happens with relativity.

The issue, which you still seem incapable of grasping, is that frame A cannot be the absolute frame if a different frame, frame B, is the absolute frame, and frame B can't be the absolute frame if frame A is. You can't have more than one absolute frame.

In frame A, the absolute frame, an object A that's at rest will have light move relative to it at c in all directions, while an object B which is moving through frame A has light moving relative to it at a range of speeds other than c at different angles (although at some angles it will still be c). If we change frame to frame B, we are changing the asserted speed of light relative to all the objects, so we now assert that light moves relative to object B in all directions at c, and that it now moves at a range of speeds other than c relative to object A. The frame B account is incompatible with the frame A account, and because frame A is the absolute frame, the frame B account is wrong - it is giving us the wrong speeds for light relative to the objects. The only complication is that with the real universe, we can't tell which frame is the absolute one, so the universe itself has to have one frame act as the absolute one - if it didn't, it would mean that light moves relative to object A at all speeds between 0 and 2c in any single direction at the same time.

Quote
How would you prove an event never happened? Sounds silly doesn't it?

If an event is unhappened, you aren't going to know that it's been unhappened, but a universe running physics that allows it to unhappen things as it changes the frame it's using to coordinate events is using much more complex physics than a universe which sticks to using a single frame for its mechanism.

Quote
Did you ever consider your models may have errors?

When I wrote them, of course, as it's easy to have bugs in a program, so I checked that they matched up to the Spacetime diagrams that cover the same events (they're a perfect fit), and I checked the maths of it repeatedly too. If they were wrong, one of the many "experts" in relativity (with the qualifications to prove it) would have found an error with them and would have taken great delight in pointing to it and tearing my argument to pieces - some of them have put a lot of time into it, but they've all drawn a blank. The diagrams are correct. There are only two SR models that run on SR's rules, and they behave exactly like my models of them. Model 0, the eternal static block universe model, is the only one that doesn't depend on a preferred frame, but fails to explain how the block can be generated to make the causation real - in trying to generate the block, extra rules would have to be brought in to coordinate the action, at which point you bring in Newtonian time and a preferred frame. Model 2 is the only other model that can be said to be pure SR, but it actually runs on a preferred frame and can only claim not to do so by changing frame continually to obfuscate its mechanism, thereby causing events to happen, unhappen and rehappen repeatedly. Another way of looking at it though would be to assert that it uses all frames at once as its mechanism, which means that all events have both happened and not happened yet, and that that is always their status no matter how long the universe has been going. That's again a much more complicated act to perform though than just doing the simplest thing, which is to use a preferred frame to govern the unfolding of events.

Go back up to the paragraph starting with "In frame A" and focus on understanding the issue. In frame A, light moves relative to object B at speeds other than c. It is only when we switch to frame B that light is asserted to be moving relative to object B at c in all directions, but such a change in what the light's doing relative to the objects should not be allowed. A change of frame is a major reworking of reality, producing a new description of what's happening that's a major distortion of the truth, telling lies about the amount of length-contraction that's applied to different objects and about the speed of light relative to them. That is shown up by mode 2 causing events to happen and unhappen as you change frame. The real universe cannot be doing that. The real universe must pick one frame to use for its mechanism and stick with it throughout.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 22/07/2017 12:52:28
The real universe must pick one frame to use for its mechanism and stick with it throughout.

Yes, the frame is c zero point energy. The timing in your modes are related to energy used vs. energy available. While you can measure energy available with a clock's tick rate there is nothing to measure energy used. So Einstein said all frames are equally valid. This also means no frame is valid because of relativity of simultaneity. Light speed is not infinite. If it were infinite we could not distinguish objects. Just like beyond 13.6 billion light years we cannot distinguish objects. This does not mean there is nothing beyond 13.6 billion light years distance.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 22/07/2017 16:00:16
The issue, which you still seem incapable of grasping, is that frame A cannot be the absolute frame if a different frame, frame B, is the absolute frame, and frame B can't be the absolute frame if frame A is. You can't have more than one absolute frame.
SR does not claim frame A or any other frame is the absolute frame, that's the significance of the relativity principle which you don't seem to understand. Give us your explanation/mechanism of why moving clocks run slower.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 22/07/2017 17:57:56
Look at his MMx simulation Phyti, it shows that light takes more time two ways if the interferometer is traveling than if it is not traveling, which is the same mechanism as the SR light clock's one.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/07/2017 00:18:41
SR does not claim frame A or any other frame is the absolute frame, that's the significance of the relativity principle which you don't seem to understand.

SR certainly doesn't claim there is one, but indeed it goes so far as to claim there isn't one. However, it depends on a preferred-frame mechanism for its functionality (unless it moves to the eternal static block universe model where the future had no opportunity to be generated out of the past), so it depends on there being an absolute frame whether it acknowledges the fact or not.

Why don't we take this right back to the very beginning to see if we can find out where it all went wrong for you. I want you to imagine that you know nothing about relativity at all and that you're a bright, open minded (but also suitably sceptical) child in a classroom who is completely new to physics. The teacher has a desk at the front of the room which is about 3.3 metres long and which is end-on to a window. He explains that light travels at a speed that allows it to go from one end of the desk to the other in ten nanoseconds. He produces two stopclocks which can count in nanoseconds and puts one at each end of the desk, then he attaches light detectors to the clocks (perhaps slave units designed for flash photography) so that the clocks can be stopped by flashes of light. He also has a flashgun from a camera which he's going to use to trigger them. He is able to start the clocks and synchronise them in some way, so they're both running and displaying the same time. He takes the flashgun to one end of the desk and aims it at the two detectors, then presses the button. There's a bright flash, and the clocks stop. One of them reads a value higher than the other by ten nanoseconds.

Now the teacher explains to the class that the Earth is moving, and so is the sun, and the galaxy, so can the speed of light really be the same in both directions along the desk relative to the desk? What if the desk is really moving through space at half the speed of light in the direction of the window such that light would take much longer to go from one end of the desk to the other in that direction and much less time to go the other way? Or what if the desk is really moving at 90% the speed of light? Well, he starts the clocks again from zero, but he has changed the mode they're running in such that they are now ticking more quickly than they were before. He also explains that he's changed the synchronisation so that one of them is ahead of the other, although it's too small a difference for you to see it. Now he repeats the experiment by setting off the flash from the same end as before. The result this time is a difference between the times of the clocks of seventy four nanoseconds.

He now explains to the class that he has measured the speed of light along the length of the bench twice. The first measurement claimed that light travels one desklength every ten nanoseconds. The second measurement claimed that light travels one desklength every 74 nanoseconds (in that direction). What he does next though is startling, because he tells the class that light travels the length of the desk in ten nanoseconds AND in 74 nanoseconds, AND in a millon years, AND in five nanoseconds. He tells them that light is moving the length of the table at all those different speeds at the same time and that his fiddling with the way the clocks are synchronised and the rates at which they tick is fully valid. Each method of synchronising the clocks is based on the idea that the desk could be moving at high speed through space, and each speed needs its own synchronisation.

The idea that the new synchronisation is valid for a high speed of travel for the desk makes sense, so that isn't the startling thing about the teacher's claim. Someone behind you speaks up, suggesting that light can only be moving at one speed along the desk. The teacher replies, "Well, there is actually a theory that asserts just that, and it fits all the facts perfectly, but we have a simpler theory which also fits all the facts which says that light's moving along the table at an infinite number of different speeds at the same time." Another heckler's voice is heard grumbling that it doesn't sound simpler. "Ah, but it is simpler," says the teacher, "because... Oh, I'm afraid I misspoke! When light's moving along the table at an infinite number of different speeds at the same time, we should simply state that it's moving along the desk in ten nanoseconds without worrying about how fast the desk might be moving, and that means we can always claim that it isn't moving at all and that we'll always be right. It means that light always travels at the same speed relative to all objects and that all the other speeds we record for any object can simply be ignored. Yes; that's what the simpler theory says!" He walks over to a cupboard in the corner of the room and by opening it reveals that it is actually a wardrobe full of clothes dangling from hangers, then he steps into it and calls, "Who's coming to Narnia with me!"

Should you follow him to Narnia? You stop to think. The measurement that he made where the clocks recorded it taking 74ns for the light to travel the length of the desk would be correct if the desk is moving at about 87% as fast as the light, and it really could be moving that fast through space. That second experiment measured the speed of light relative to the table and found it not to be the 10ns/desklength, but 74ns/dl. Someone in the class knows what the speed of light is supposed to be in km/s, so you get a calculator out and crunch the numbers. Yes - 10ns/dl matches up to the official speed of light. But 74ns/dl most certainly does not. The teacher carried out an experiment which measured the speed of light along the desk as 0.135c relative to the desk. At first he asked you to believe that light travels the length of the desk at all speeds between 0 and 2C at the same time, but then he changed his mind and asked you to ignore that and to believe instead that light always travels at c relative to the desk and doesn't travel at any other speed than c relative to anything.

"I don't want to fail my exams," says a boy at the front. He gets up and walks into the wardrobe. "If we have to say we believe this stuff to get through, I'll gladly say it!"

"I want a job at NASA," says the girl who was sitting next to him, so she follows him into the wardrobe.

A flock of baaing sheep then make their way to the wardrobe and they all pass through into Narnia. You are left with a few people who either don't care about physics or who object to what they're being asked to believe. What are you going to do? We can measure the speed of light relative to moving objects and get values which are clearly not c, so do these measurements not provide valid information? The measured value of 74ns/dl may be correct, and if it is correct, all the other speeds for light relative to the desk in that direction are necessarily wrong. If the teacher wants the speed of light to be c relative to the desk for all speeds of travel of the desk, he must be changing the speed of light through space in different directions to match any change in the speed of travel of the desk through space. But as soon as there are two desks moving relative to each other, his trick is broken - the speed of light across one of the desks will not be c relative to it in every direction, and you will be able to measure the difference. The teacher's favoured theory produces contradictions, while the "less simple" theory (which seems much simpler) doesn't.

As I said before, there's some weird psychology tied up in all this.

Quote
Give us your explanation/mechanism of why moving clocks run slower.

I refer you to my interactive MMX diagrams and the text around them. It has a fixed speed of light through a fabric of space (instead of having an undeclared [and denied] infinite number of such fabrics in order to provide an infinite number of speeds of light across all objects and maintaining all events in a state of happened and not-happened at all times).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 23/07/2017 16:23:55
SR certainly doesn't claim there is one, but indeed it goes so far as to claim there isn't one. However, it depends on a preferred-frame mechanism for its functionality (unless it moves to the eternal static block universe model where the future had no opportunity to be generated out of the past), so it depends on there being an absolute frame whether it acknowledges the fact or not.

That is a straw man argument. The two postulates make no such claim. In fact having a constant c is a claim for an absolute frame.


Why don't we take this right back to the very beginning to see if we can find out where it all went wrong for you. I want you to imagine that you know nothing about relativity at all and that you're a bright, open minded (but also suitably sceptical) child in a classroom who is completely new to physics. The teacher has a desk at the front of the room which is about 3.3 metres long and which is end-on to a window. He explains that light travels at a speed that allows it to go from one end of the desk to the other in ten nanoseconds. He produces two stopclocks which can count in nanoseconds and puts one at each end of the desk, then he attaches light detectors to the clocks (perhaps slave units designed for flash photography) so that the clocks can be stopped by flashes of light. He also has a flashgun from a camera which he's going to use to trigger them. He is able to start the clocks and synchronise them in some way, so they're both running and displaying the same time. He takes the flashgun to one end of the desk and aims it at the two detectors, then presses the button. There's a bright flash, and the clocks stop. One of them reads a value higher than the other by ten nanoseconds.

Good so far if the desk is about 10 feet long as you suggest.



Now the teacher explains to the class that the Earth is moving, and so is the sun, and the galaxy, so can the speed of light really be the same in both directions along the desk relative to the desk? What if the desk is really moving through space at half the speed of light in the direction of the window such that light would take much longer to go from one end of the desk to the other in that direction and much less time to go the other way? Or what if the desk is really moving at 90% the speed of light? Well, he starts the clocks again from zero, but he has changed the mode they're running in such that they are now ticking more quickly than they were before. He also explains that he's changed the synchronisation so that one of them is ahead of the other, although it's too small a difference for you to see it. Now he repeats the experiment by setting off the flash from the same end as before. The result this time is a difference between the times of the clocks of seventy four nanoseconds.

They would tick more slowly at 90% of the speed of light. If you change the tick rate of your clock you are no longer synchronized with relative rest for your clock. You do not get 74ns at 90% relative to rest. You measure the same 10ns because of your contraction and the slower tick rate by relativity (although I do not believe in physical contraction). The affect for one way vs. two way is different. Lets make your clock the same distance as your desk and measure the one way as a tick. Clocks are only timing measurements based on c. You cannot measure something if that something is part of the measurement. Timing using c and measuring c is included.

He now explains to the class that he has measured the speed of light along the length of the bench twice. The first measurement claimed that light travels one desklength every ten nanoseconds. The second measurement claimed that light travels one desklength every 74 nanoseconds (in that direction). What he does next though is startling, because he tells the class that light travels the length of the desk in ten nanoseconds AND in 74 nanoseconds, AND in a millon years, AND in five nanoseconds. He tells them that light is moving the length of the table at all those different speeds at the same time and that his fiddling with the way the clocks are synchronised and the rates at which they tick is fully valid. Each method of synchronising the clocks is based on the idea that the desk could be moving at high speed through space, and each speed needs its own synchronisation.

Nothing is valid for timing and view.


The idea that the new synchronisation is valid for a high speed of travel for the desk makes sense, so that isn't the startling thing about the teacher's claim. Someone behind you speaks up, suggesting that light can only be moving at one speed along the desk. The teacher replies, "Well, there is actually a theory that asserts just that, and it fits all the facts perfectly, but we have a simpler theory which also fits all the facts which says that light's moving along the table at an infinite number of different speeds at the same time." Another heckler's voice is heard grumbling that it doesn't sound simpler. "Ah, but it is simpler," says the teacher, "because... Oh, I'm afraid I misspoke! When light's moving along the table at an infinite number of different speeds at the same time, we should simply state that it's moving along the desk in ten nanoseconds without worrying about how fast the desk might be moving, and that means we can always claim that it isn't moving at all and that we'll always be right. It means that light always travels at the same speed relative to all objects and that all the other speeds we record for any object can simply be ignored. Yes; that's what the simpler theory says!" He walks over to a cupboard in the corner of the room and by opening it reveals that it is actually a wardrobe full of clothes dangling from hangers, then he steps into it and calls, "Who's coming to Narnia with me!"

Relativity only says the speed of light is constant. How you measure timing is not valid. Measuring the same speed of light in every frame is a proof timing measurements fail and not that SR is incorrect. c is the absolute frame not a static block universe. c creates the present. Not the past and not the future. Only the present as motion for the energy of time.



Should you follow him to Narnia? You stop to think. The measurement that he made where the clocks recorded it taking 74ns for the light to travel the length of the desk would be correct if the desk is moving at about 87% as fast as the light, and it really could be moving that fast through space. That second experiment measured the speed of light relative to the table and found it not to be the 10ns/desklength, but 74ns/dl. Someone in the class knows what the speed of light is supposed to be in km/s, so you get a calculator out and crunch the numbers. Yes - 10ns/dl matches up to the official speed of light. But 74ns/dl most certainly does not. The teacher carried out an experiment which measured the speed of light along the desk as 0.135c relative to the desk. At first he asked you to believe that light travels the length of the desk at all speeds between 0 and 2C at the same time, but then he changed his mind and asked you to ignore that and to believe instead that light always travels at c relative to the desk and doesn't travel at any other speed than c relative to anything."I don't want to fail my exams," says a boy at the front. He gets up and walks into the wardrobe. "If we have to say we believe this stuff to get through, I'll gladly say it!"

It's c that is constant. You are making a straw man argument. Measuring and timing are not valid except for relative measuring from a frames point of view and only that frame. No view is valid!!!!! They are indirect measurements that change with velocity. Both time and distance.




A flock of baaing sheep then make their way to the wardrobe and they all pass through into Narnia. You are left with a few people who either don't care about physics or who object to what they're being asked to believe. What are you going to do? We can measure the speed of light relative to moving objects and get values which are clearly not c, so do these measurements not provide valid information? The measured value of 74ns/dl may be correct, and if it is correct, all the other speeds for light relative to the desk in that direction are necessarily wrong. If the teacher wants the speed of light to be c relative to the desk for all speeds of travel of the desk, he must be changing the speed of light through space in different directions to match any change in the speed of travel of the desk through space. But as soon as there are two desks moving relative to each other, his trick is broken - the speed of light across one of the desks will not be c relative to it in every direction, and you will be able to measure the difference. The teacher's favoured theory produces contradictions, while the "less simple" theory (which seems much simpler) doesn't.As I said before, there's some weird psychology tied up in all this

Yes there is a faith issue in relativity. It's an incomplete understanding of the masses that allows confusing points of view. I am sorry to say you have not completed your understanding until you resolve the paradoxes you claim. You are creating paradoxes that are not applicable. No view is valid and no measurement is valid but c is constant.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/07/2017 22:17:34
That is a straw man argument. The two postulates make no such claim. In fact having a constant c is a claim for an absolute frame.

A lot depends on your interpretation skills, though there's plenty of stuff out there written about SR to help you understand what its claims are.

"The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference."

Which means SR has no absolute frame, or rather that it has an infinite number of absolute frames which conflict with each other mechanistically.

Quote
They would tick more slowly at 90% of the speed of light.

No. I'm actually using 87% the speed of light (the 90% merely being one speed suggested by the teacher). When he set the clocks to tick faster, he set them to tick twice as quickly as normal. If we assume that the desk is stationary and call the frame in which it is stationary Frame A, we are going to set up a clock synchronisation and tick rate for Frame B which is a frame moving at 87%c relative to the desk. The Frame B view of the desk, once converted to the "God view", will show time running at half speed for the classroom, but the two clocks will be ticking at the same rate as Frame B's clocks in their analysis, so that's why we have the clocks ticking faster. The desk is moving through their "God view" analysis at 87%c with its action slowed to half rate, but the clocks appear unslowed because they're ticking twice as fast as any other clocks in the classroom. The synchronisation of these clocks means that they are displaying the same time as each other in that Frame B "God view" analysis. This is how we are able to perform a Frame B measurement of the amount of Frame B's time taken for light to go from one end of the desk to the other.

Quote
If you change the tick rate of your clock you are no longer synchronized with relative rest for your clock. You do not get 74ns at 90% relative to rest. You measure the same 10ns because of your contraction and the slower tick rate by relativity (although I do not believe in physical contraction).

Of course you get 74ns (at 87%c) - it's exactly the same value you would record for light overtaking a desk that's moving past you at 87%c when you consider yourself to be stationary and synchronise your clocks on that basis. All I've done is allow you to make a Frame B measurement of a desk that you're co-moving with while you (and the desk) are at rest in Frame A.

Quote
The affect for one way vs. two way is different. Lets make your clock the same distance as your desk and measure the one way as a tick. Clocks are only timing measurements based on c. You cannot measure something if that something is part of the measurement. Timing using c and measuring c is included.

I can't make sense of that word salad. All synchronisations should be equally valid in SR so long as if they map to possible frames, which means both measurements of the length of the desk should be equally valid in SR. The fact that they contradict each other is not my problem, but is simply a result of SR using the crude trick of changing the speed of light across an object whenever the frame of analysis changes.

Quote
It's c that is constant. You are making a straw man argument. Measuring and timing are not valid except for relative measuring from a frames point of view and only that frame. No view is valid!!!!! They are indirect measurements that change with velocity. Both time and distance.

You are not the ideal person to defend SR because you are such a long way from understanding what SR is and what it asserts. There is nothing "straw man" about what I'm showing you when I reveal the crude trick that SR is playing on people - every change of frame changes the speed of light across every object (relative to that object) and leads to many events unhappening.

Quote
Yes there is a faith issue in relativity. It's an incomplete understanding of the masses that allows confusing points of view. I am sorry to say you have not completed your understanding until you resolve the paradoxes you claim. You are creating paradoxes that are not applicable. No view is valid and no measurement is valid but c is constant.

The problem here is that you don't understand SR and are repeatedly misrepresenting it. Outside of a gravity well, c is constant, moving through space at a fixed speed. When two objects pass each other, light cannot be moving past both of them in all directions at c relative to both of them. SR makes out that it can, but it's claiming something impossible. If light is moving past object A at c in all directions relative to object A while object B is moving past object B, light cannot also be moving past object B in all directions at c relative to object B. As soon as someone is programmed to believe that it can be, they have been taken away from rationality to become citizens of Narnia.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 24/07/2017 04:17:43
"The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference."

That is not a relativity postulate. Light is measured to be c in all inertial frames in a vacuum. There is a distinction that creates a problem for your understanding and causes your confusion. Just because you measure something does not make your measurement an accurate value.



Which means SR has no absolute frame, or rather that it has an infinite number of absolute frames which conflict with each other mechanistically.

There is no conflict. There is one absolute frame "c".

No. I'm actually using 87% the speed of light (the 90% merely being one speed suggested by the teacher). When he set the clocks to tick faster, he set them to tick twice as quickly as normal. If we assume that the desk is stationary and call the frame in which it is stationary Frame A, we are going to set up a clock synchronisation and tick rate for Frame B which is a frame moving at 87%c relative to the desk. The Frame B view of the desk, once converted to the "God view", will show time running at half speed for the classroom, but the two clocks will be ticking at the same rate as Frame B's clocks in their analysis, so that's why we have the clocks ticking faster. The desk is moving through their "God view" analysis at 87%c with its action slowed to half rate, but the clocks appear unslowed because they're ticking twice as fast as any other clocks in the classroom. The synchronisation of these clocks means that they are displaying the same time as each other in that Frame B "God view" analysis. This is how we are able to perform a Frame B measurement of the amount of Frame B's time taken for light to go from one end of the desk to the other.

Clocks only measure the available energy of a frame and not what energy is being used for velocity. So your clocks tick at the same relative rate in a vacuum to distance. Physics is the same in every frame relative to that frames reaction rate of available energy not being used for velocity.
You cannot measure light with light and determine your velocity relative to light. All measurements in all inertial frames measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. You cannot use that to say light runs at different speeds. It has a deeper meaning than the surface value measured.

Of course you get 74ns (at 87%c) - it's exactly the same value you would record for light overtaking a desk that's moving past you at 87%c when you consider yourself to be stationary and synchronise your clocks on that basis. All I've done is allow you to make a Frame B measurement of a desk that you're co-moving with while you (and the desk) are at rest in Frame A.

Each frame has its own speed and measurement that has no value in another frame. You cannot mix frames and get anything useful. In Co-moving desks neither desk would view the other as perpendicular. Each desk would view the other as behind. Simultaneity of Relativity. Gods eye would view them as perpendicular. But not using 87% relative light.

 
I can't make sense of that word salad. All synchronisations should be equally valid in SR so long as if they map to possible frames, which means both measurements of the length of the desk should be equally valid in SR. The fact that they contradict each other is not my problem, but is simply a result of SR using the crude trick of changing the speed of light across an object whenever the frame of analysis changes.

It is your problem with understanding relativity properly. No view is valid!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no contradiction because no view is valid. All views are equally valid is saying no view is valid over another. Each has its own distance measurements for its clock measurements. You change two measurements not just the one for timing. Do you understand fractal relationships?



You are not the ideal person to defend SR because you are such a long way from understanding what SR is and what it asserts. There is nothing "straw man" about what I'm showing you when I reveal the crude trick that SR is playing on people - every change of frame changes the speed of light across every object (relative to that object) and leads to many events unhappening.

No,no,no,no,no The object changes its speed across light. There is no trick other than understanding the true nature of SR. How you understand it is just incorrect.

The problem here is that you don't understand SR and are repeatedly misrepresenting it

I would agree one of us is misrepresenting it. Words have different meanings to different people. The relative speed of light is not the same in every frame. The measured speed of light is the same in every frame. That is actually necessary for light to be constant.


Outside of a gravity well, c is constant, moving through space at a fixed speed. When two objects pass each other, light cannot be moving past both of them in all directions at c relative to both of them.

Of course not. They are measured to be c with that frames distance and clock measurements. There is no fixed frame for measurement. You cannot use c to measure c.


SR makes out that it can, but it's claiming something impossible.

Your interpretation of measurements having a fixed distance for c between frames is the impossible belief.

If light is moving past object A at c in all directions relative to object A while object B is moving past object B, light cannot also be moving past object B in all directions at c relative to object B. As soon as someone is programmed to believe that it can be, they have been taken away from rationality to become citizens of Narnia.

No measurement is valid. To believe the measurement represents the true speed of light in any one frame is at fault in your reasoning. There is no fixed frame except c. You cannot measure c by c.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/07/2017 17:53:22
"The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference."

That is not a relativity postulate.

Google says it is.

Quote
Light is measured to be c in all inertial frames in a vacuum. There is a distinction that creates a problem for your understanding and causes your confusion. Just because you measure something does not make your measurement an accurate value.

You're now giving me the LET interpretation where the speed of light relative to us isn't necessarily c (and almost always isn't). That is not the SR interpretation.

Quote
There is no conflict. There is one absolute frame "c".

Whether you're doing SR or LET, c is not a frame.

Quote
Clocks only measure the available energy of a frame and not what energy is being used for velocity. So your clocks tick at the same relative rate in a vacuum to distance. Physics is the same in every frame relative to that frames reaction rate of available energy not being used for velocity.
You cannot measure light with light and determine your velocity relative to light. All measurements in all inertial frames measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. You cannot use that to say light runs at different speeds. It has a deeper meaning than the surface value measured.

Which part of that is supposed to invalidate my method for making a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across the desk as made by someone at rest with the desk in Frame A? I have provided a correct method for making that measurement. You can make a measurement for the frame of your choice by adjusting the synchronisation of the clocks and their tick rate.

Quote
Each frame has its own speed and measurement that has no value in another frame. You cannot mix frames and get anything useful.

That's the whole point - they're not compatible with each other because each frame theorises a different absolute frame and has different speeds of light across all objects relative to those objects from the speeds asserted for other frames. If one frame actually matches up to reality, none of the other frames do because their asserted speeds of light across objects (relative to those objects) are wrong.

Quote
In Co-moving desks neither desk would view the other as perpendicular. Each desk would view the other as behind. Simultaneity of Relativity. Gods eye would view them as perpendicular. But not using 87% relative light.

Everything can be converted to God views so there is no need to get bogged down in complexities relating to communication delays.

Quote
It is your problem with understanding relativity properly. No view is valid!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no contradiction because no view is valid. All views are equally valid is saying no view is valid over another. Each has its own distance measurements for its clock measurements.

I don't know exactly what you intend to say when you claim no view is valid, but one God view is valid and the rest are wrong. SR claims that all of them are valid. You are not speaking for SR.

Quote
You change two measurements not just the one for timing. Do you understand fractal relationships?

Of course you're changing two measurements, and the consequence is that you have events unhappen every time you change frame, which should (for any rational person) show you that SR is playing a trick that can't match up to the real universe.

Quote
No,no,no,no,no The object changes its speed across light. There is no trick other than understanding the true nature of SR. How you understand it is just incorrect.

Because of this mathematical warping, events unhappen every time you change frame - that's magic, not physics.

Quote
I would agree one of us is misrepresenting it. Words have different meanings to different people. The relative speed of light is not the same in every frame.

That's an LET claim.

Quote
The measured speed of light is the same in every frame.

The measured speed of light relative to an object moving through a frame is (in most directions) not c.

Quote
Outside of a gravity well, c is constant, moving through space at a fixed speed. When two objects pass each other, light cannot be moving past both of them in all directions at c relative to both of them.

Of course not. They are measured to be c with that frames distance and clock measurements. There is no fixed frame for measurement. You cannot use c to measure c.

I'm using a single frame with two desks, one at rest in that frame and the other not. I measure the speed of light across the desks and it is faster relative to one than the other. The speed of light relative to objects is not always c and can be measured as not being c. If you change frame to hypothesise that the other object is at rest, you then reverse the result, but the consequence of this cheap trick if you try to run the universe on this model is that many events must unhappen every time you change frame. If you tolerate that, you are doing magic and not physics. Some of the top SR people understand that, which is why they have retreated to the eternal static block universe model where these problems don't occur (until they try to account for the generation of the block, at which point they just close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and sing a long note while flapping their tongues against their lips to try to drone out all input).

Quote
Your interpretation of measurements having a fixed distance for c between frames is the impossible belief.

Consequence: many events must unhappen whenever you change frame. Not science, but magic.

Quote
No measurement is valid. To believe the measurement represents the true speed of light in any one frame is at fault in your reasoning. There is no fixed frame except c. You cannot measure c by c.

I refer you to my reply to the previous point. A model that makes many events unhappen whenever the universe changes the frame it's using to coordinate the unfolding of events is not a model of the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 24/07/2017 19:00:34
Google says it is.
Einstein begs to differ. I follow his interpretation over google.

You're now giving me the LET interpretation where the speed of light relative to us isn't necessarily c (and almost always isn't). That is not the SR interpretation.

If google gives you a different postulate than Einstein your going with google for the SR interpretation over Einstein's.


Whether you're doing SR or LET, c is not a frame.
c is what creates all of the frames.

Which part of that is supposed to invalidate my method for making a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across the desk as made by someone at rest with the desk in Frame A? I have provided a correct method for making that measurement. You can make a measurement for the frame of your choice by adjusting the synchronisation of the clocks and their tick rate.

You are not following relativity using one frames measuring stick with another frames clock tick rate.

That's the whole point - they're not compatible with each other because each frame theorises a different absolute frame and has different speeds of light across all objects relative to those objects from the speeds asserted for other frames. If one frame actually matches up to reality, none of the other frames do because their asserted speeds of light across objects (relative to those objects) are wrong.

This goes back to you not understanding the postulate as described by Einstein. Measurement by any frames measuring stick and tick rate measure the speed of light the same as any other. The faster you go the longer your measuring stick and slower your tick rate to match c. It is a fractal issue all based on c as the absolute frame. Suns so large that they have attraction faster than the speed of light create a BH.



I don't know exactly what you intend to say when you claim no view is valid, but one God view is valid and the rest are wrong. SR claims that all of them are valid. You are not speaking for SR.

Once again lets look at what Einstein said. You seem not to understand the nuances of Einstein's words. SR does not claim all views are valid. Einstein's claim was all frames are equally valid. Equally valid is actually the same as equally not valid. You change the sentence and you change the meaning. You are forcing relativity to be incorrect by changing the wording.

 
Of course you're changing two measurements, and the consequence is that you have events unhappen every time you change frame, which should (for any rational person) show you that SR is playing a trick that can't match up to the real universe.

You must conclude that I am unreasonable while I conclude that you do not understand your fractal environment based on everyone in the present.
I'm using a single frame with two desks, one at rest in that frame and the other not. I measure the speed of light across the desks and it is faster relative to one than the other.
Yes.

The speed of light relative to objects is not always c and can be measured as not being c.

Only if your doing the measurement wrong.


"The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference."

That is not a relativity postulate.

Google says it is.

Quote
Light is measured to be c in all inertial frames in a vacuum. There is a distinction that creates a problem for your understanding and causes your confusion. Just because you measure something does not make your measurement an accurate value.

You're now giving me the LET interpretation where the speed of light relative to us isn't necessarily c (and almost always isn't). That is not the SR interpretation.

Quote
There is no conflict. There is one absolute frame "c".

Whether you're doing SR or LET, c is not a frame.

Quote
Clocks only measure the available energy of a frame and not what energy is being used for velocity. So your clocks tick at the same relative rate in a vacuum to distance. Physics is the same in every frame relative to that frames reaction rate of available energy not being used for velocity.
You cannot measure light with light and determine your velocity relative to light. All measurements in all inertial frames measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. You cannot use that to say light runs at different speeds. It has a deeper meaning than the surface value measured.

Which part of that is supposed to invalidate my method for making a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across the desk as made by someone at rest with the desk in Frame A? I have provided a correct method for making that measurement. You can make a measurement for the frame of your choice by adjusting the synchronisation of the clocks and their tick rate.

Quote
Each frame has its own speed and measurement that has no value in another frame. You cannot mix frames and get anything useful.

That's the whole point - they're not compatible with each other because each frame theorises a different absolute frame and has different speeds of light across all objects relative to those objects from the speeds asserted for other frames. If one frame actually matches up to reality, none of the other frames do because their asserted speeds of light across objects (relative to those objects) are wrong.

Quote
In Co-moving desks neither desk would view the other as perpendicular. Each desk would view the other as behind. Simultaneity of Relativity. Gods eye would view them as perpendicular. But not using 87% relative light.

Everything can be converted to God views so there is no need to get bogged down in complexities relating to communication delays.

Quote
It is your problem with understanding relativity properly. No view is valid!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no contradiction because no view is valid. All views are equally valid is saying no view is valid over another. Each has its own distance measurements for its clock measurements.

I don't know exactly what you intend to say when you claim no view is valid, but one God view is valid and the rest are wrong. SR claims that all of them are valid. You are not speaking for SR.

Quote
You change two measurements not just the one for timing. Do you understand fractal relationships?

Of course you're changing two measurements, and the consequence is that you have events unhappen every time you change frame, which should (for any rational person) show you that SR is playing a trick that can't match up to the real universe.

Quote
No,no,no,no,no The object changes its speed across light. There is no trick other than understanding the true nature of SR. How you understand it is just incorrect.

Because of this mathematical warping, events unhappen every time you change frame - that's magic, not physics.

Quote
I would agree one of us is misrepresenting it. Words have different meanings to different people. The relative speed of light is not the same in every frame.

That's an LET claim.

Quote
The measured speed of light is the same in every frame.

The measured speed of light relative to an object moving through a frame is (in most directions) not c.

Quote
Outside of a gravity well, c is constant, moving through space at a fixed speed. When two objects pass each other, light cannot be moving past both of them in all directions at c relative to both of them.

Of course not. They are measured to be c with that frames distance and clock measurements. There is no fixed frame for measurement. You cannot use c to measure c.

I'm using a single frame with two desks, one at rest in that frame and the other not. I measure the speed of light across the desks and it is faster relative to one than the other. The speed of light relative to objects is not always c and can be measured as not being c. If you change frame to hypothesise that the other object is at rest, you then reverse the result, but the consequence of this cheap trick if you try to run the universe on this model is that many events must unhappen every time you change frame. If you tolerate that, you are doing magic and not physics. Some of the top SR people understand that, which is why they have retreated to the eternal static block universe model where these problems don't occur (until they try to account for the generation of the block, at which point they just close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and sing a long note while flapping their tongues against their lips to try to drone out all input).

Quote
Your interpretation of measurements having a fixed distance for c between frames is the impossible belief.

Consequence: many events must unhappen whenever you change frame. Not science, but magic.

Quote
No measurement is valid. To believe the measurement represents the true speed of light in any one frame is at fault in your reasoning. There is no fixed frame except c. You cannot measure c by c.

I refer you to my reply to the previous point. A model that makes many events unhappen whenever the universe changes the frame it's using to coordinate the unfolding of events is not a model of the real universe.

Your interpretation of wording causes the unfolding of events. The distance light travels further is the timed speed of light in a frame. You can only measure the speed of light in every frame not the relative speed of light in every frame. The speed of light is constant.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/07/2017 21:38:46
Google says it is.
Einstein begs to differ. I follow his interpretation over google.

Google supplies links to a variety of respectable sources which all agree with the postulate I provided. Do you want it in German instead, perhaps?

Quote
If google gives you a different postulate than Einstein your going with google for the SR interpretation over Einstein's.

Or perhaps you could supply the postulates yourself, since you appear to disagree with everyone else as to what they are.

Quote
c is what creates all of the frames.

...but is not itself a frame of reference.

Quote
You are not following relativity using one frames measuring stick with another frames clock tick rate.

It doesn't matter - I'm getting a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across an object relative to that object where that object is at rest in Frame A. This is just the same as using a Frame A measurement of the speed of light across an object moving through Frame A - it produces a speed of light relative to that object which is not equal to c.

Quote
This goes back to you not understanding the postulate as described by Einstein. Measurement by any frames measuring stick and tick rate measure the speed of light the same as any other. The faster you go the longer your measuring stick and slower your tick rate to match c. It is a fractal issue all based on c as the absolute frame. Suns so large that they have attraction faster than the speed of light create a BH.

What you need to understand about all these frames is that they all hold the same content. If the speed of light across an object is c relative to that object in every direction in one frame, it cannot also be c across that object relative to that object in every direction in any other frame. The theories about what's happening that each frame generates are incompatible with each other, and the result of this is the unhappening of events when you change frame which reveal the error in your thinking. That you are incapable of understanding that does not equate to you being right.

Quote
Once again lets look at what Einstein said. You seem not to understand the nuances of Einstein's words. SR does not claim all views are valid. Einstein's claim was all frames are equally valid. Equally valid is actually the same as equally not valid. You change the sentence and you change the meaning. You are forcing relativity to be incorrect by changing the wording.

You are being ridiculous there - if none of them are valid, none of them describe reality, so the model can never be a model of the real universe. His assertion is that all frames are not only equally valid, but valid.

Quote
Of course you're changing two measurements, and the consequence is that you have events unhappen every time you change frame, which should (for any rational person) show you that SR is playing a trick that can't match up to the real universe.

You must conclude that I am unreasonable while I conclude that you do not understand your fractal environment based on everyone in the present.

You are being irrational - the universe cannot unhappen events and rehappen them willy nilly as it changes frame (for no good reason) in the course of coordinating the unfolding of events. However, if your "fractal" approach is supposed to be a solution, it looks as if it's heading in the direction of the block universe, and that breaks as much as it fixes.

Quote
The speed of light relative to objects is not always c and can be measured as not being c.

Only if your doing the measurement wrong.

If light is travelling the length of a train moving through the measurement frame and the light and train are moving in the same direction, it takes longer for the light to get from the back of the train to the front, and that can be measured.

Quote
Your interpretation of wording causes the unfolding of events. The distance light travels further is the timed speed of light in a frame. You can only measure the speed of light in every frame not the relative speed of light in every frame. The speed of light is constant.

You can measure the speed of light relative to things moving through the measurement frame, and the values you get are not c. By changing the synchronisation of the clocks on the desk and changing the rate at which they tick, you can make measurements for the speed of light along the desk for as many frames as you like, and if one of those values is true, all the others are necessarily false. If you accept them all as being true, you end up with a model where contradictions are tolerated and events can unhappen at the drop of a cat.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 25/07/2017 12:35:28
If light is travelling the length of a train moving through the measurement frame and the light and train are moving in the same direction, it takes longer for the light to get from the back of the train to the front, and that can be measured.

This is my major disagreement with your position. You cannot take the measurements from one frame place them in another frame and be accurate. That will give you two different values. Your measurements are only valid for your frame. You are tricking yourself if you believe math can make things un-happen.


Google supplies links to a variety of respectable sources which all agree with the postulate I provided. Do you want it in German instead, perhaps?

I want it in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR.

Or perhaps you could supply the postulates yourself, since you appear to disagree with everyone else as to what they are.

No only Einstein's wording makes sense with Relativity. All frames are valid from that frames perspective using simultaneity of relativity.

...but is not itself a frame of reference
A constant can be used as a frame of reference to a point even if we cannot measure it properly. All measurements are indirect.



It doesn't matter - I'm getting a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across an object relative to that object where that object is at rest in Frame A. This is just the same as using a Frame A measurement of the speed of light across an object moving through Frame A - it produces a speed of light relative to that object which is not equal to c.

You cannot use your measurements in another frame and claim it to be valid. Your measurements are only valid for the frame you occupy. Measurements are visually fractal but physically constant in the present. You do not observe an object where it is in space with velocity of that object.

There really is no difference between Let and SR. One recognizes a framework (Let) and no opinion on a framework (SR). Neither describe a framework's mechanics. In Einstein's 1920 paper he recognized the need for a framework
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/07/2017 13:42:48
What do the experts say?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/07/2017 14:09:58
What do the experts say?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/

I think I already solved this one Jeffrey...
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 25/07/2017 14:45:26
Yes the speed of light is constant in any direction. But light can chase an object like NY from SF or  move towards a collision as in NY to SF. That is just a change in distance and not the speed of light.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/07/2017 15:06:50
That is just a change in distance and not the speed of light.

yup
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 25/07/2017 17:52:55
David Cooper #437

So MMX was solved using time dilation and length contraction, and no different than the SR explanation.

following MMX in 'Magic Schoolbook':

Quote
Clocks are slowed by movement, but importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all: you can see that this must be the case because the light is still travelling through the fabric of space at its full normal speed. (Einstein's theory makes very different claims about all this,

NO, he doesn't, your interpretations do.

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."  (1905 paper)

In the paragraph 'enter uncle albert' in 'Magic Schoolbook':
you say it's not possible to identify an absolute frame, so why even consider it. When scientists today conduct isolated experiments, they don't concern themselves with the location of stars or planets, since those objects have no significant effect on what they are doing.
The ether was shelved in the 1930's after more refined experiments could not detect any effect on the motion of the earth.

You misrepresent SR and it's author. He did not consider different descriptions by observers in different locations as contradictions. Why then form the Lorentz coordinate transformations between frames?  You are already aware of the mathematical 4d version by Minkowski, not Einstein.  The block universe had not been conceptualized in 1905!
Length contraction for Einstein resulted from a measuring method via the simultaneity convention so it wasn't physical.

The round trip transit time for light emitted from the local frame was defined to be equal in both directions, since there is no way to determine an absolute speed for the moving observer. An observer watching a frame go by would see the difference in outbound vs inbound local time in the x direction.

You can assume an absolute frame U to form your math expressions for A and B relative to U, then eliminate U and form math expressions for A and B relative to each other. I.e. no need for U.

A misinterpretation of the spacetime diagram.

Quote
Everything in a Spacetime diagram has to move up the diagram over time even if it is stationary in space, but objects which are moving rapidly through space will have to move upwards more rapidly than slower objects if they are taking shortcuts into the future. In mode 1 we have a 1:1 tick-to-tick ratio for clocks on all paths, and this allows you...

A spacetime drawing may be considered as a sequence of still frames overlaid in the order of occurrence, an object at each instance of time. The information is the same as in a movie, slide show, or simulation, but presented simultaneously.
Refer to drawing below.
Speed is the ratio of the x interval/ct interval. The times are hyperbolic (green curves), similar to isobars, and not 1:1. Light profiles are always inclined at 45 deg, and object speeds are inclined between o and 45 deg.  Objects don't move in time, and if they did move faster vertically as you suggest, they would actually be moving slower! Typically the time lines for moving objects are labeled with wider spaced tick marks. The hyperbolic time is not a product of SR as commonly thought, but the reality of 2 and 3 dimensional space. Moving objects in general will move past an object with an offset, thus the distance varies in hyperbolic form, and light transit time varies accordingly. Only light on a collision course with the observers forehead moves in linear time.





https://app.box.com/s/s3w4nk5j0m6c3ti4o8s0w8iucq4qv0m8
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/07/2017 17:58:44
What do the experts say?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/

Experts? You must be joking!

"In the 1960s and 70s, various physicists looked for a directional dependence by placing a gamma ray emitter at the edge of a rotating disc and an absorber at the centre. They then looked for any difference in the rate of absorption as the disc rotates but found none." [Note that there are two versions of this experiment, the other placing the emitter at the centre and the detector at the edge.]

Why are they still pedalling that debunked idiocy? Either they're really shoddy thinkers or they're deliberately pumping out propaganda which they know full well to be false. They completely failed to take Doppler shift into account - had they bothered to do their analysis thoroughly they would have worked out that no change should be detected regardless of how fast the apparatus is moving through space.

The idea behind the experiment is that if the centre of the turntable is stationary, once the disk reaches its target rotation speed, the movement of the emitter will slow the frequency of the emitted radiation until the detector starts to detect it, the detector being tuned to a very specific frequency and being incapable of detecting the signal if it's even slightly out, and the emitter emitting a very specific frequency of gamma ray with no variation. The emitter is moving at a constant speed and the detector is stationary.

What happens if you move the apparatus at high speed through space? The emitter now speeds up and slows down relative to the fabric of space, but the detector moves along at a constant rate, so it seemed obvious to these naive "experts" that the frequency arriving at the centre must now vary, leading to the detector failing to detect the signal most of the time, only receiving the odd blip on occasions when the emitter emitted a gamma ray at a time when it was moving at the right speed through space for the frequency to be right. Open-and-shut case, they thought, so they published their null result and proclaimed that they had proved LET wrong, and their proclamations remain out there all over the place without the retraction being attached to it, just as happened with MMX and a host of other experiments which failed to live up to the claims that were initially made of them.

With the apparatus moving through space, the functionality of the detector is slowed, tuning it to a lower frequency than when it was at rest. The emitter was already moving before, but it is now moving faster through space on average than before, thereby slowing its functionality too and tuning the gamma rays that it produces to a lower frequency. But, sometimes it's moving more quickly through space than average, and sometimes less quickly than average, so it produces gamma rays of different frequencies. If the experiment was done with the apparatus at rest, there would be no Doppler shift changes because each crest and trough of the wave is produced at exactly the same distance away from the detector. If the apparatus is moving through space, that breaks down. If we look at the case where the emitter is moving forwards fastest, it is putting out gamma rays of lower frequency, but each crest or trough is produced further ahead of the detector, meaning that later crests and troughs have less distance to travel through space to reach the moving detector, with the result that the ray is blue-shifted. In the opposite case where the emitter is moving most slowly, it's putting out gamma rays of a higher frequency, but each crest or trough has further to go to meet the detector than the one before it, and this red-shifts the signal. These Doppler shifts (and the relativistic effects on the shape of the rotating disc) ensure that the received signals do not vary in frequency at all.

To go through all the maths of it could be done in complex ways, but fortunately there's a way to simplify things to make it absolutely clear to anyone of normal intelligence that the received signals can't vary, and that's to provide co-moving emitters on tangents to the disc which will produce gamma rays of the same frequency as the co-moving emitter on the edge of the disc. We thereby remove the complexities of the rotation and make the reality brutally stark. We now have simple movement of the emitter relative to the detector equivalent to all the bog-standard cases of two spaceships passing each other, and no matter which of the tangents we move our emitter along, it will be moving at the exact same speed relative to the emitter if you measure it from the frame of reference in which the detector is stationary. There is no possibility of the perceived frequency changing, and the fact that the people behind the experiment didn't work that out before building the thing and didn't even work it out before publishing their results and making ignorant claims about it says a lot about their actual status as experts. Worse though by far is the fact that people are still pushing this stuff and making the same debunked claims about it. It's shocking that this goes on, but it does, and that's why I'm absolutely justified in calling the establishment a mafia because they allow all this to happen even though they know damned well that it's been debunked.

There is no experiment that can determine the one-way speed of light. Every single experiment that has ever had the claim made of it has been debunked.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/07/2017 18:18:45
What do the experts say?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/

I think I already solved this one Jeffrey...

The pdf has examples of the use of linear algebra to transform between frames. It is always useful to have worked examples.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/07/2017 18:20:16
They are reviewing past experiments. Read the PDF.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/07/2017 18:24:21
If light is travelling the length of a train moving through the measurement frame and the light and train are moving in the same direction, it takes longer for the light to get from the back of the train to the front, and that can be measured.

This is my major disagreement with your position. You cannot take the measurements from one frame place them in another frame and be accurate. That will give you two different values. Your measurements are only valid for your frame. You are tricking yourself if you believe math can make things un-happen.

Go to my interactive Spacetime diagram, select mode 2, run it till the counter says 360, then change between frames A and B and watch events happen and unhappen. That's what your model does whenever you change frame, and it shows that the accounts generated by different frames are incompatible. If the accounts from one frame is true, the accounts from all the others are false.

You have just agreed that the measurements from different frames are incompatible, so why can't you complete the logic and recognise that the accounts are incompatible. One frame asserts that it takes 10ns for light to travel along the desk. Another frame asserts that it takes 74ns. Another frame asserts that it takes a fraction more than 5ns. Another frame asserts that it takes a billion years. At most, only one of those accounts can be true. But, if all accounts are held to be true, light is simultaneously passing the desk at all possible speeds between 0 and 2c. If you want to claim that these units of time are different for different frames and that they're all really the same speed, then which speed is the true one? All of them? No. One and only one of them. If you theorise that it's a specific speed in a specific frame, you are theorising specific compatible speeds for each frame, so if it's 10ns/dl for one frame, it will be 74ns/dl for one of the frames moving at 87%c relative to the first frame. This produces a theory that the desk is at rest in an absolute frame, and it may or may not be true, but if it is true, any account that predicts a speed other than 10ns/dl for the desk's rest frame is necessarily false.

Quote
I want it in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR.

Why don't you post it then so that we can see how wrong Google, Wikipedia, etc. are. If it's significantly different, you should be only too keen to show it.

Quote
You cannot use your measurements in another frame and claim it to be valid.

Well, you're making my case - the accounts generated by different frames asserted to be at rest are incompatible and cannot all be true.

Quote
There really is no difference between Let and SR. One recognizes a framework (Let) and no opinion on a framework (SR). Neither describe a framework's mechanics. In Einstein's 1920 paper he recognized the need for a framework

One proposes an absolute frame and the other bans one. Mechanistically, an absolute frame is essential, so SR is not modelling the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/07/2017 18:26:43
They are reviewing past experiments. Read the PDF.

Where's the PDF?

Edit: found it in the small print. Where in there is there an experiment that hasn't been debunked?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/07/2017 19:12:38
They are reviewing past experiments. Read the PDF.

Where's the PDF?

Edit: found it in the small print. Where in there is there an experiment that hasn't been debunked?

I didn't say anything about the veracity of the information.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/07/2017 19:49:16
So MMX was solved using time dilation and length contraction, and no different than the SR explanation.

It uses an absolute-frame mechanism.

Quote
Quote
Clocks are slowed by movement, but importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all: you can see that this must be the case because the light is still travelling through the fabric of space at its full normal speed. (Einstein's theory makes very different claims about all this,

NO, he doesn't, your interpretations do.

LET says that clocks are running slow and that time is not. Einstein says that the clocks aren't running slow because they're ticking at their normal rate and taking shorter paths into the future. It's easy for you to argue that he made some other claim though, because he has more than one model that he switches between as and when it suits him - sometimes it's model zero, sometimes model 2 and sometimes it's LET. Early on he mainly focused on model 2, but later on he went more for model zero (the eternal static block universe), but he continued to mix incompatible models up in his pronouncements, and so do his many followers today. If I was to spell out the complications of his schizophrenic position on SR at every point on my page, it would be at least ten times the length without providing any additional information of any value.

Quote
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."  (1905 paper)

That could equally well be LET, but a lot is left to interpretation. His subsequent pronouncements clearly rule out any possible acceptance of LET on his part.

Quote
you say it's not possible to identify an absolute frame, so why even consider it. When scientists today conduct isolated experiments, they don't concern themselves with the location of stars or planets, since those objects have no significant effect on what they are doing.

If they don't care about mechanism and creating a model that can actually represent the real universe, they should stop claiming that they're right about how the real universe works.

Quote
The ether was shelved in the 1930's after more refined experiments could not detect any effect on the motion of the earth.

Refined experiments which are incapable of detecting something which they aren't testing for are merely a catalogue of failed thinking. If you try to measure the hardness of a rock by roasting a duck, you aren't going to get a relevant answer.

Quote
You misrepresent SR and it's author.

He misrepresents himself by changing position.

Quote
He did not consider different descriptions by observers in different locations as contradictions. Why then form the Lorentz coordinate transformations between frames?

I don't know if you're referring to something specific that I said somewhere, but the transformations are used to change the speed of light across objects and thereby generate different theories as to what the reality of a situation might be, and the different theories are incompatible.

Quote
You are already aware of the mathematical 4d version by Minkowski, not Einstein.  The block universe had not been conceptualized in 1905!

If SR was being presented today as LET with an acceptance that there's an absolute frame instead of a denial of its existence, there wouldn't be anything for us to argue about. By going back to Einstein's early position on relativity you appear to be distancing yourself from SR as it is pushed today, and that's a very good thing. All you have to do now is accept that LET is correct, that it's wrong to deny the existence of an absolute frame, and that the one-way speed of light across an object is not always c relative to it. You are still trying to have your cake and eat it though.

Quote
Length contraction for Einstein resulted from a measuring method via the simultaneity convention so it wasn't physical.

SR predicts that you can fit more objects of a given rest length round the edge of a circle if you move them round the circle at relativistic speed. That is a physical length-contraction unless you use 4D Spacetime and hide some of the length in the time dimension. Once you start doing that, the wording you use to describe what you're talking about becomes ambiguous, so it's more useful to spell out which specific model you're using at the time and describe the where and the what of an object without opening the door to misinterpretation. There are people about who don't believe in the 4D model but who still don't think the length-contraction is physical, and their belief is therefore in something impossible. That's what happens though when the experts keep mixing models and leading people to think that what they say of one applies to them all. Every claim needs to be framed with greater precision by naming the specific model. Einstein appears to switch between a 3D SR variant of model 2 (like LET but tolerating contradictions), 4D model 2 (Minkowski's version of model 2), and model 0 (eternal block). Any claim not pinned to a specific model is ambiguous.

Quote
You can assume an absolute frame U to form your math expressions for A and B relative to U, then eliminate U and form math expressions for A and B relative to each other. I.e. no need for U.

The universe has to use a frame for running its coordination of events. If that frame isn't A or B, it can't just throw away U and use only A and B unless it changes the frame it's using to A or B, and in the course of making that change it will have to undo a lot of events that have already happened. Now that it's done that and is using A as its event-coordination frame, what happens when you want to consider B and C? The universe has to switch from using A to B or C and again make lots of events unhappen. It's a ridiculous model if you expect the universe to run the same mechanism. We have an army of experts who simply don't get it because they refuse to think it through. They don't have a rational mechanism for the model to run on. The few that have had to produce a working model have all used a preferred frame, and if they ever decide to switch frame to try to do prove they're doing SR, they immediately make events unhappen, thereby demonstrating that they are no longer modelling the real universe.

Quote
A spacetime drawing may be considered as a sequence of still frames overlaid in the order of occurrence, an object at each instance of time. The information is the same as in a movie, slide show, or simulation, but presented simultaneously.

And the unfolding of events is different depending on which frame you use as your base. Switching frames reveals that by showing events unhappening.

Quote
Speed is the ratio of the x interval/ct interval. The times are hyperbolic (green curves), similar to isobars, and not 1:1. Light profiles are always inclined at 45 deg, and object speeds are inclined between o and 45 deg.  Objects don't move in time, and if they did move faster vertically as you suggest, they would actually be moving slower! Typically the time lines for moving objects are labeled with wider spaced tick marks. The hyperbolic time is not a product of SR as commonly thought, but the reality of 2 and 3 dimensional space. Moving objects in general will move past an object with an offset, thus the distance varies in hyperbolic form, and light transit time varies accordingly. Only light on a collision course with the observers forehead moves in linear time.

Mode 1 illustrates what happens if you try to run events by the dogma that clocks don't run slow, and that model only has to potential to describe the real universe if it's a block universe with objects leaving a solidified trace of themselves at every past point they've been through. If JavaScript allowed me to show the path history of each object instead of merely moving the dots up the screen without leaving a line behind them, I would have programmed it to do that (and to allow those lines to change shape as the frame is changed), but every dot that I use slows the processing and it would soon grind to a halt if I tried to show the history of each object's progress up the screen. You are therefore left to imagine those lines being drawn. What mode 1 shows is the unfolding of events with 1:1 tick rates for all paths, and it's correct. The objects moving fastest up the screen are the ones moving fastest through space, and light, if I showed it, would move up the diagram infinitely quickly (which means it can't be shown). The reason you're failing to understand how mode 1 works is that you're stuck with a mode 2 mentality, applying a preferred frame to coordinate the unfolding of events so that the leading edge of that unfolding is a straight and horizontal line.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/07/2017 20:02:11
You certainly seem to have a bee in you bonnet about me David when I am not actually arguing against you. Hmmm ...
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/07/2017 20:03:02
I didn't say anything about the veracity of the information.

I thought you'd maybe found something, but here's the part relating to the debunked experiment:-

"After the invention of masers, lasers and of the Mössabauer effect in around 1960, the one-way
experiments became technically feasible. The Mössabauer effect: recoilless emission and
absorption of gamma rays, has involvement with nuclear and electromagnetic interactions as
well as the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, and is potentially a very powerful tool for
one-way isotropy tests. The Mössabauer-rotor experiment is subject to relativistic time dilation
where the dilatation factor can be deduced from the modified Doppler shift formula. One-way
isotropy tests using Mössabauer-rotor experiments were performed by different observers in the
1960s [71 - 73]. A disk with a γ-ray emitter on the rim and an absorber at the centre where a
detector was placed just behind the absorber was rotated. Observation of the directional
dependence of the γ-rays transition through the absorber was monitored by the detector."

No mention of it being debunked - it simply gives the impression that it still stands. It then goes on to mention a variety of other experiments, some of which I haven't heard of and will look into when I have the time, but the rest have certainly been debunked.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/07/2017 20:07:37
You certainly seem to have a bee in you bonnet about me David when I am not actually arguing against you. Hmmm ...

Fear not - I'm not attacking you, Jeffrey, but their propaganda. How can they possibly not know that that experiment's been debunked? It's interesting though that they mention Doppler shifts there, so they ought to have worked out that a null-result is inevitable, unless they also failed to take into account the relativistic effects on a rotating disc, but that wouldn't create an error without an impossibly high rate of rotation. The idea of using co-moving emitters on tangents (to the curved path through space that the disc's emitter is following - not to the disc as I stated previously) clearly shows that they cannot possibly get anything other than a null result.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/07/2017 20:38:22
Particle lifetimes are an active area of study. Both in the atmosphere and in particle accelerators.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
I haven't kept up to date though.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 25/07/2017 22:31:55
David

https://books.google.com/books?id=KYpU4AWwJ3UC&pg=RA1-PA594&lpg=RA1-PA594&dq=einstein's+papers+all+views+are+equally+valid&source=bl&ots=GvA87zhiMD&sig=c89-jM4jQPRFIcGGrN4BEB_nuhY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS94blraXVAhUCdz4KHeqiCmsQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=einstein's%20papers%20all%20views%20are%20equally%20valid&f=false
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/07/2017 23:32:17
Reading Einstein's original papers doesn't give you a proper picture of what he ended up pushing as a model. Professional physicists have even been banned from leading physics forums for arguing about what SR is based on his original papers.

I have looked at all the models that Einstein used and shown that the only rational models are LET and versions of 4D Spacetime models with added Newtonian time and a preferred frame. If you want to use a 3D version of mode 2 for your argument, you run into the problem of events unhappening and your model is thus shown not to be running a mechanism equivalent to that of the real universe. If you want to use a 4D version of mode 2, the same applies. Add an absolute frame though (turning them into mode 3), and both become viable, one of them then being LET.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 26/07/2017 12:07:18
I use an energy model of c occupying space and moving electrons by distance. Time is meaningless in that case. Energy c is what allows motion and motion allows the laws of nature. Time is caused by motion c.

Your points avoid what makes the electron move in the first place so you might as well be arguing with the wind.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 26/07/2017 18:30:16
So Einstein said all frames are equally valid. This also means no frame is valid because of relativity of simultaneity.
Valid means acceptable, based on sound reasoning. A word cannot have a meaning and it's opposite, that's nonsensical. He said any inertial frame can serve as a reference. Each frame has it's own relative simultaneity.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 26/07/2017 18:34:25
David Cooper;
Quote
#433
A change of frame is a major reworking of reality, producing a new description of what's happening that's a major distortion of the truth, telling lies about the amount of length-contraction that's applied to different objects and about the speed of light relative to them.
That's magic! Changing frames does not alter the universe, unless you are talking Harry Potter physics, which only requires to know the secret hand shake.
Just as the 10 observers have a different perspective of the house, switching from one position to another does not affect the house. Switching from different camera positions does not affect the sporting event.
In the SR train scenario, if the passenger dropped a stone, it falls vertically to the floor.  The bystander outside would see the stone fall in an arc to the floor (assume a large window). How can each see a different path for the same stone? You would call this a contradiction, SR calls it relative perceptions. Maybe you don't understand perception. It's what the mind thinks it sees, mental images formed from sensory input, and just as real as anything outside the mind. It explains illusions and drug induced hallucinations, and SR effects. In the train example, the trajectories are real perceived  images for the observers, but are not physically real outside the mind. Example; planets have one position for each observation (and corresponding clock event), and when plotted over time, produce an historical record of positions, labeled as an orbit. No one has ever looked into space and seen an orbit. They are not physically real except as lines on paper.
We can move over to your simulations which you claim are dynamic in showing the mechanism for formation of the universe, which SR does not.
First, there is no motion on a computer screen, it's just a sequence of pixels turned on and off, like the sequence of still images projected on the movie screen. The mind compares the current image with the previous one and melds them into a continuous  stream, another case of perception. In this sense a graph or spacetime drawing is no different, being a history of positions. The relations of moving objects cannot be determined from one position, but requires multiple positions over a period of time.
Quote
#433
In frame A, light moves relative to object B at speeds other than c. It is only when we switch to frame B that light is asserted to be moving relative to object B at c in all directions, but such a change in what the light's doing relative to the objects should not be allowed.
In a space-time drawing, the ct (vertical) axis is the time of the reference frame A, thus defining it as a rest frame, and exempt from motion induced effects td and lc. A would measure the speed of light as c. A would also measure light speed relative to B in the x direction as cv, with B speed=v. Since B is moving it experiences motion induced effects td and lc. The complementary effects of td and lc scale x' and t' for B by the gamma factor g. Therefore if in A, x/t=c, then in B, x'/t'=c.
This is also why any frame can be used as a reference, and the descriptions depend only on the relative speed of the second frame.
Newton was in error when stating there is an absolute state of rest and motion.
'Rest' is a special case of motion, when two objects have the same velocity.
That's why the first state can't be found.

Show an instance of event meshing failure, or an event unhappening.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/07/2017 21:59:19
I use an energy model of c occupying space and moving electrons by distance. Time is meaningless in that case. Energy c is what allows motion and motion allows the laws of nature. Time is caused by motion c.

You clearly have a theory of some kind which may well be worthy of discussion, but it doesn't appear to be SR. It would be interesting to know though if you can actually run a simulation of your model. Perhaps you'd like some help in writing a simulation of it? That would be the ultimate test, because any theory that could match up to the real universe must be possible to run in a simulation and demonstrate that it runs by the rules of the model (without cheating by breaking them). That's what I ask the SR folks to do, and because they refuse to do so, I take their model and run it for them, thereby showing up the failure of the model to do what it says on the tin. I can do that for your model to, and if it works, it will be better than SR.

Quote
Your points avoid what makes the electron move in the first place so you might as well be arguing with the wind.

It certainly does feel like that.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/07/2017 23:18:31
Quote
#433
A change of frame is a major reworking of reality, producing a new description of what's happening that's a major distortion of the truth, telling lies about the amount of length-contraction that's applied to different objects and about the speed of light relative to them.
That's magic! Changing frames does not alter the universe, unless you are talking Harry Potter physics, which only requires to know the secret hand shake.

That's the whole point - changing frame must not make events unhappen, so when two observers at the same place but moving relative to each other theorise about the state of reality elsewhere, they produce conflicting accounts. An event elsewhere, one of them calculates will have happened while the other will calculate has not yet happened, so one of those accounts is wrong. For both accounts to be right, the event must both have happened already and not happened yet, so you're making a magical universe out of one that has a much simpler explanation which doesn't need that magic shoehorned into it.

Quote
In the SR train scenario, if the passenger dropped a stone, it falls vertically to the floor.  The bystander outside would see the stone fall in an arc to the floor (assume a large window). How can each see a different path for the same stone? You would call this a contradiction, SR calls it relative perceptions.

It is perfectly reasonable for them to generate different accounts of what they've seen happen based on the bias of their own rest frame, but their accounts certainly do contradict each other, so it cannot be the case that both accounts are true. If the observer on the train claims that the stone fell straight downwards, he is either making a claim that goes beyond his competence (because he understands nothing of relativity) or he is simply missing out the condition: "if the frame in which I was at rest was stationary" and assumes that it will automatically be understood without having to state it.

Quote
Maybe you don't understand perception. It's what the mind thinks it sees, mental images formed from sensory input, and just as real as anything outside the mind. It explains illusions and drug induced hallucinations, and SR effects. In the train example, the trajectories are real perceived  images for the observers, but are not physically real outside the mind. Example; planets have one position for each observation (and corresponding clock event), and when plotted over time, produce an historical record of positions, labeled as an orbit. No one has ever looked into space and seen an orbit. They are not physically real except as lines on paper.

There is no problem with understanding how perception comes into things. The issue is that the universe has to run on a rational mechanism and if it uses one frame of reference to coordinate the unfolding of events, that model has a preferred frame. If it uses an infinite number of preferred frames to try to get round that, it is then carrying out an infinite number of different simulations which will unfold the events in different ways so that something that's happened in one hasn't happened yet in another, while in another of those simulations the reverse is true. Is that a simpler model than a model with a preferred frame? No. The simpler model does one single simulation in which events are not in a state of happened and unhappened at the same time, and it doesn't make events unhappen after they've happened. The only SR model that can handle this is model zero, and it has to exist by magic without ever having been generated in past-to-future order.

Quote
We can move over to your simulations which you claim are dynamic in showing the mechanism for formation of the universe, which SR does not.
First, there is no motion on a computer screen, it's just a sequence of pixels turned on and off, like the sequence of still images projected on the movie screen. The mind compares the current image with the previous one and melds them into a continuous  stream, another case of perception. In this sense a graph or spacetime drawing is no different, being a history of positions. The relations of moving objects cannot be determined from one position, but requires multiple positions over a period of time.

The issue with whether a simulation is compatible with the real universe is whether what it does maps to what the universe could be doing. The simulation and the universe both have to coordinate the unfolding of events in order of causation without unhappening any events once they've happened, and to achieve this it has to pick a frame of reference to use in controlling that coordination and stick with it. The only way to avoid sticking to a single frame for this is to use the eternal static block universe and not bother to account rationally for its generation, because then you can change frame without changing the content of the block beyond asserting a different slant for it - when you change frame you are not making anything happen or unhappen, and when you "move" to a future time, you don't make anything new happen either as the future of the block is already in place with all the events magically pre-happened (without ever having happened).

Quote
In a space-time drawing, the ct (vertical) axis is the time of the reference frame A, thus defining it as a rest frame, and exempt from motion induced effects td and lc. A would measure the speed of light as c. A would also measure light speed relative to B in the x direction as cv, with B speed=v. Since B is moving it experiences motion induced effects td and lc. The complementary effects of td and lc scale x' and t' for B by the gamma factor g. Therefore if in A, x/t=c, then in B, x'/t'=c.

All you're doing there is converting to a frame B measurement of the speed of light relative to B. The frame A measurement of the speed of light relative to B is not c. A change of frame is a switch to a new theory of the underlying reality and is in conflict with the original theory of reality. They are incompatible rivals, and that shows up when you see the unhappening of events in model 2.

Quote
Newton was in error when stating there is an absolute state of rest and motion.

You have no justification for asserting that as you don't have a model that works without a preferred frame (unless it's a magical eternal block which was never created in order of causation).

Quote
Show an instance of event meshing failure, or an event unhappening.

I refer you to modes 1 and 2 of my interactive diagram. Show me a model that solves those problems without introducing a preferred frame and turning into mode 3.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 27/07/2017 12:36:43
Phyti

zwitterion

David

I can imagine an orbit.



I take their model and run it for them, thereby showing up the failure of the model to do what it says on the tin. I can do that for your model to, and if it works, it will be better than SR.

I can run my model in my head but it is probably to difficult in a simulation. My model is Dark Mass as the physical component and spin c as the energy component. Aether style with a spin c. The 2d plates have opposing spins like gears. The next  2d plate is the same but 90 degree offset. All spins are complimentary. This moves the electron in a helix.

Gravity- Take the proton and electron within that matrix and expand the dark mass particles by the inverse square of the distance away from the proton. The electron moves away from the proton (electrons take turn coming out of the proton) until the dark mass particles contract (by distance from the proton) and the resistance causes the electron to curve back to the proton where energy is less dense. This is the basis of mechanical gravity GR. The more mass the greater the dilation of energy. This increases the distance electrons can travel through space and slows the clock tick rate.

Magnetism- The rotation of electrons in electromagnets causes the dark matter spin to be concentrated. This transfers to other open faced molecules to continue the spin. The spin is clockwise in the North and clockwise out the south. Mirrored spins oppose SS and NN.

Protons and Neutrons are made up of positrons and negatrons in a stable pattern of flow within the Proton and Neutron. Break that pattern of flow and macro matter reverts back to dark mass with spin. Fusion causes dark mass to become macro mass in suns

I have allot more like weak and strong force but that flows into chemistry.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 27/07/2017 16:32:52
That's the whole point - changing frame must not make events unhappen, so when two observers at the same place but moving relative to each other theorise about the state of reality elsewhere, they produce conflicting accounts
Changing frames does not make events unhappen. Where did this idea come from? It is not part of LET or SR. It must be your own theory.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/07/2017 22:21:35
I can run my model in my head but it is probably to difficult in a simulation.

If you can run it in your head, you are already doing it in a simulation. You're right though that it will take a lot of work to translate it into a simulation on a computer due to the complexities of all that mechanical rotating stuff you've got going on. However, it should be easy enough just to do a simulation of the parts of it that relate directly to relativity so that you can show how your model can overcome the problems that none of the SR models can. The starting point for building it is to simulate the action for a single location as things there interact in a series of cause-and-effect interactions. If your model can handle that, then we have got something to build upon. If it can't, then it's already dead in the water.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/07/2017 22:25:44
Changing frames does not make events unhappen. Where did this idea come from? It is not part of LET or SR. It must be your own theory.

If you run a mode 2 simulation, events unhappen (while others happen) whenever you change the frame of reference that's being used to coordinate events - this is unavoidable whenever you run any SR designed to prevent event-meshing failures. This isn't something I've made up, but something that necessarily applies to SR whenever you run the model.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: xersanozgen on 28/07/2017 11:58:52
  METHOD                       Reference role                                                            Relative role                   

Classic Mechanics        Local frame or an object                                          Test object

The theory SR                A Moving body (source, local place, observer)     Light ( an identified Photon)

LCS  concept                  Most external frame (Space/LCS/Lİght)                 Moving body/ an object

7630
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 28/07/2017 19:04:55
David Cooper;

I ran modes 1-3. Modes 2 and 3 are the equivalent as are the space-time diagrams and agree with SR.. You swap A and B, and change the sign of v.
Mode 1 is unreal, scrambled fantasy. total distortion. Refer to the graphic which is based on planets Blue and Green separating at .866c and a rocket (red) launching at t=1 at .99c from each planet to intercept the other planet. The four events of interest are circled.
In mode 1, with frame A the reference, times should be A-times. Both rockets launch at 250 (1 yr) and arrive at intercept location at 490 (2 yr).  Both B and G arrive at intercept location at 960 (3.8 yr). Coordinates from the graphic are noted as (x, t).
Rocket B2G moves from (0, 1) to (6.92, 2), at 6.9c.
Rocket G2B moves from (1.72, 1) to (0, 2), at 1.7c.
B moved from (0, 0) to (0, 3.80) at 0.
G moved from (0, 0) to (7.96, 3.80) at 2.1c.
1. These are violations of the faster than light restriction.
2. There is no acceleration in 'uniform constant inertial motion'.
B and G are coincident at the origin, then G disappears from B's view on the x axis.
Both rockets disappear from the planet's view.
3. Those are violations of the energy conservation law.

Quote
but objects which are moving rapidly through space will have to move upwards more rapidly than slower objects if they are taking shortcuts into the future.
Based on what?


https://app.box.com/s/byp1eshk8o7v63ww46rg7nf4cmrctwwr
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 29/07/2017 00:32:37
Mode 1 is unreal, scrambled fantasy. total distortion.

Mode 1 represents imagined happenings in the eternal static block universe model where all things follow their paths with their clocks ticking unslowed. If you imagine the moving dots leaving a trail behind them and then imagine those trails are already in place from the start, the way the dots move represents the way that one important subset of Einsteinists assert that they move through the block. The problem with that philosophy is clear though if you try to apply it to the construction of the block (which they never attempt to do for unsound ideological reasons) - the result is event-meshing failures during the construction, but they are ironed out over the course of a Newtonian time (that isn't specified in the model but which must be brought in to generate the block) with history changing at individual Spacetime locations. Model 1 could also represent a universe that isn't a block universe, but it would lead to things disappearing out of sight as soon as they move relative to each other, so that variant of model 1 clearly doesn't represent our universe.

Quote
Refer to the graphic which is based on planets Blue and Green separating at .866c and a rocket (red) launching at t=1 at .99c from each planet to intercept the other planet. The four events of interest are circled.

I can't see why you have one of the rockets turn round on the t=2.00 line and not get back to the centre line at the t=4.00 line as it should. It is doing the same speed relative to its home planet on both legs and cannot get back to the centre at the t=3.75 line.

Quote
In mode 1, with frame A the reference, times should be A-times. Both rockets launch at 250 (1 yr) and arrive at intercept location at 490 (2 yr).  Both B and G arrive at intercept location at 960 (3.8 yr).

Ah - I see I made an error with the 250 figure (which I only added into the page relatively recently). It should say 240 units is a year rather than 250. I'll correct that on the next edit. The 240 was just an arbitrary amount chosen to make the simulation run not too slow and not too fast, so it has no real significance beyond that.

Quote
Coordinates from the graphic are noted as (x, t).
Rocket B2G moves from (0, 1) to (6.92, 2), at 6.9c.
Rocket G2B moves from (1.72, 1) to (0, 2), at 1.7c.
B moved from (0, 0) to (0, 3.80) at 0.
G moved from (0, 0) to (7.96, 3.80) at 2.1c.
1. These are violations of the faster than light restriction.

You're reading this mode wrongly. The speeds of travel observed by any content of the universe would see things as if all objects are at the same height on the diagram. Each object leaves a solid trail of itself behind it which the other objects see at the same altitude as themselves. The objects moving up the screen at what appear to be superluminal speeds don't perceive it that way either - their clocks are ticking at one second per second and the paths they're following have been length-contracted such that they are doing nothing out of the ordinary. In the same way, light travels up the screen at infinite speed in this mode because it travels all distances in zero time while contracting them to zero distance. This mode shows objects taking shortcuts into the future and you are seeing them making those gains under a Newtonian time that's had to been added to the model to allow these shortcuts to be taken. If you think it doesn't all add up, it's because the model is pushing SR beyond the limits of its specifications in order to enable some of its dogma to play out in the construction phase of a block universe. If you don't like it, that's fine by me because the problem is with SR and not with my fair representation of how it would have to run if it could run. Incidentally, mode 1 also represents the GR model where it too depends on things taking shortcuts into the future rather than having time run slow in a gravity well.

Quote
2. There is no acceleration in 'uniform constant inertial motion'.

None is shown in any of the modes.

Quote
B and G are coincident at the origin, then G disappears from B's view on the x axis.
Both rockets disappear from the planet's view.

They leave lasting versions of themselves at all locations they've been in, so those continue to be seen. It's the leaders that notice things missing because they leave everything else behind, so they experience the event-meshing failures whereas the objects moving slower up the screen won't (because they're able to interact with the unshown trace of the objects which have their leading point higher up). Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top, but the construction phase of the block requires the strands of pasta to start at the bottom and work their way up through the diagram to write themselves into the block, and their leading ends move upwards at different speeds depending on how much time they have to pass through to get into the future. It's complex, and it's a mess, but that's not my problem as it's not my theory, but theirs. All I'm doing is making a scrupulously fair attempt to run their model, and where it has deficiencies that prevent it from being run, I have to add the missing parts to provide that essential functionality. I've invited the world's experts in SR to build their own working version of their model, but they are unable to do so (because their block universe model doesn't function at all and their other SR models make events unhappen when you change frame).

Quote
3. Those are violations of the energy conservation law.

Mode 1 is actually a viable model, but you need to understand what it represents. It enables events to change at individual Spacetime locations under a Newtonian time that has to be added to enable the model to function, and that ability for events to change enables it to tolerate event-meshing failures. It's still a ridiculous model, of course, but it is what it is and I can't help that - I have done the best that can be done with their model.

Quote
Quote
but objects which are moving rapidly through space will have to move upwards more rapidly than slower objects if they are taking shortcuts into the future.
Based on what?

Based on the rules of their model - if time is not allowed to run slow on any paths (under the control of the time of a preferred frame), then they must move up the diagram in the way I have shown. They can't have their cake and eat it, no matter how much they try to.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 29/07/2017 12:43:56
They can't have their cake and eat it, no matter how much they try to.


Yes you can because there are two different cakes. You eat one and claim the other one is the one you ate in your arguments.

There is one basis for time as we use it in measurement. That basis is always c. Each frame has a ratio of c for its reaction rate. Its the reaction rate that determines the tick rate of a clock in that frame. All motion through space is counted by c as a reduction in available energy. c being total energy available. Your measuring sticks increase visually as an exact ratio to your tick slowing in your frame. This is why you always measure the same speed of light in a vacuum in all frames. GR does the same thing with dilation of energy available in zero point energy. It expands your measuring stick while increasing the distance traveled for your tick rate.

Words are ambiguous in interpretation. I just interpret them in a way that describes relativity rather than interpret them to invalidate SR or the equivalence of GR.

Many of your sources are interpretations not by Einstein. The scientific community shunned Einstein after his 1920 papers because he once again brought up a medium needed for transfer of information. It was the scientific community that wanted its cake and eat it too.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 29/07/2017 19:29:04
Yes you can because there are two different cakes. You eat one and claim the other one is the one you ate in your arguments.

Why are you making that claim? I'm the one who takes all their different cakes and gives them distinct names to spell out that they are not the same cake, then I show that NONE of those cakes functions properly. They are the ones who try to lump all their incompatible models together into one great mess and claim that it works. I have shown what happens when each model is simulated and what needs to be changed to make some of the models function, but all I get are objections from people who can't show any SR model working but who merely want to believe that it somehow works even though it's impossible.

Quote
There is one basis for time as we use it in measurement. That basis is always c. Each frame has a ratio of c for its reaction rate. Its the reaction rate that determines the tick rate of a clock in that frame. All motion through space is counted by c as a reduction in available energy. c being total energy available. Your measuring sticks increase visually as an exact ratio to your tick slowing in your frame. This is why you always measure the same speed of light in a vacuum in all frames. GR does the same thing with dilation of energy available in zero point energy. It expands your measuring stick while increasing the distance traveled for your tick rate.

How does that solve the problems of event-meshing failure and the unhappening of events? All you've done is allow yourself to be taken in by an illusion and to think that the speed of light relative to you is always c in every direction in every frame, but you're just doing magical thinking. If light is passing you at c relative to you and you then accelerate towards it and somehow imagine that it is still passing you at c relative to you, you've gone into the magical world of Narnia.

Quote
Words are ambiguous in interpretation. I just interpret them in a way that describes relativity rather than interpret them to invalidate SR or the equivalence of GR.

Why don't you try interpreting them in a way that can produce a functional simulation that doesn't break the rules of the model you're trying to simulate (or work out how such a simulation could be built) - that's all I'm asking you to do, and although it's an impossible task, you don't believe that so you should be more than willing to take on the task. You can call in the world's physicists to help you, and I'm sure some of them must understand how to write programs. Even if you do this, you will fail, because you cannot simulate a broken model and get it to function in such a way as to remove the brokenness.

Quote
Many of your sources are interpretations not by Einstein. The scientific community shunned Einstein after his 1920 papers because he once again brought up a medium needed for transfer of information. It was the scientific community that wanted its cake and eat it too.

I'm covering all the interpretations. Show me a model that I haven't considered and show me how it manages to do what none of the other "SR" models have managed to do. I have shown you models that can actually work as well as the ones that don't. Model 3 has two variants, one of which is LET and the other is Minkowski's 4D non-block SR with a preferred frame added to it. Both fit with experimental results, but one has a superfluous time dimension and has light follow paths which are always of zero distance and zero time (while actually going into storage for in some cases billions of years). All variants of model 2 are dead in the water because they unhappen events when they change the frame of reference they're using to control the unfolding of events. Model 1 is also viable with a block universe so long as it also includes Newtonian time so that event-meshing failures can be tolerated and corrected (meaning that events change over Newtonian time at individual Spacetime locations). It's all covered. You and your ilk have yet to propose any other model at all, never mind come up with anything that can enable anything that could deserve to be labelled as "unmofified SR" to function in the way it has to in order to match up with the claims made about SR. What should be clear to anyone of high intelligence by this point is that the simplest of the viable models which fits the facts is LET, and NONE of the viable models are SR. Importantly, LET itself is not SR because it doesn't come with any of SR's dogma which would require the universe to run on magic.

Why don't you stop for a moment and ask yourself this: how can it be that a single individual with no qualifications in physics has managed to show more than one functional relativity simulation using models that aren't SR while the entire Physics establishment has been unable to produce a single functional relativity simulation with SR? The only models they have produced are the same non-SR models as mine, plus the pseudo-functional model zero where they can produce imagined functionality within an eternal static block which they can't generate without switching to the physics of one of my non-SR models.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 30/07/2017 14:11:10
Why are you making that claim? I'm the one who takes all their different cakes and gives them distinct names to spell out that they are not the same cake, then I show that NONE of those cakes functions properly. They are the ones who try to lump all their incompatible models together into one great mess and claim that it works. I have shown what happens when each model is simulated and what needs to be changed to make some of the models function, but all I get are objections from people who can't show any SR model working but who merely want to believe that it somehow works even though it's impossible.

I realize it seems impossible. I was once on your side of the table.



How does that solve the problems of event-meshing failure and the unhappening of events? All you've done is allow yourself to be taken in by an illusion and to think that the speed of light relative to you is always c in every direction in every frame, but you're just doing magical thinking. If light is passing you at c relative to you and you then accelerate towards it and somehow imagine that it is still passing you at c relative to you, you've gone into the magical world of Narnia.

The speed of light is c relative to me only in special occasions. c is energy and available in any and all directions. If you are describing a photon it is a propagation sphere moving out from the source. We view objects as a reflection from the light source. We never view the present. We only view what happened and never as it is happening.

Light does not pass you at c in an accelerated frame. That is not what Relativity SR says. That may be what the scientific community says and if they say that they are incorrect. You may be stuck in that belief by listening to incorrect information. Remember when I said words can be ambiguous. Its your interpretation that is at fault not SR. In all frames the speed of light is measured to be the same in a vacuum. That is not!!! the same as the speed of light relative to you is the same in every frame. The fault is in the measurement. Neither the measuring stick nor the tick rate are the same in different frames. Your view of your measuring stick increases by the same rate as your tick rate decreases to confound your measurement. The same thing happens in GR but that is a physical change in the measuring stick and distance. You can either make distances constant or time constant in every frame for relativity and find a value for measurement in your frame but it is only good for your frame.

There is a difference saying measurement just like there is a difference in equally valid over valid. It is a difference in understanding that you have to find. Try looking at the puzzle as trying to solve the puzzle and not just say some of the pieces are missing.



Why don't you try interpreting them in a way that can produce a functional simulation that doesn't break the rules of the model you're trying to simulate (or work out how such a simulation could be built) - that's all I'm asking you to do, and although it's an impossible task, you don't believe that so you should be more than willing to take on the task. You can call in the world's physicists to help you, and I'm sure some of them must understand how to write programs. Even if you do this, you will fail, because you cannot simulate a broken model and get it to function in such a way as to remove the brokenness

Its not an impossible task using Einstein's interpretation over some of the less than perfect interpretations. Realizing Einstein's interpretation is a challenge that many who teach relativity fail in his interpretation. You may be a victim and see the failure. That is an important part of progress.

Why don't you stop for a moment and ask yourself this: how can it be that a single individual with no qualifications in physics has managed to show more than one functional relativity simulation using models that aren't SR while the entire Physics establishment has been unable to produce a single functional relativity simulation with SR? The only models they have produced are the same non-SR models as mine, plus the pseudo-functional model zero where they can produce imagined functionality within an eternal static block which they can't generate without switching to the physics of one of my non-SR models.

My field is analytical chemistry and you are correct not physics. But I am not burdened by the silly diversions offered by the academic standard view. I was allowed to create my own view and interpretation of Einstein's words. I recognize you are a victim of strict interpretation that does not allow for the ambiguity of words in their meanings.

 
I'm covering all the interpretations.

Except the one that is correct.

Show me a model that I haven't considered and show me how it manages to do what none of the other "SR" models have managed to do. I have shown you models that can actually work as well as the ones that don't. Model 3 has two variants, one of which is LET and the other is Minkowski's 4D non-block SR with a preferred frame added to it. Both fit with experimental results, but one has a superfluous time dimension and has light follow paths which are always of zero distance and zero time (while actually going into storage for in some cases billions of years). All variants of model 2 are dead in the water because they unhappen events when they change the frame of reference they're using to control the unfolding of events. Model 1 is also viable with a block universe so long as it also includes Newtonian time so that event-meshing failures can be tolerated and corrected (meaning that events change over Newtonian time at individual Spacetime locations). It's all covered. You and your ilk have yet to propose any other model at all, never mind come up with anything that can enable anything that could deserve to be labelled as "unmofified SR" to function in the way it has to in order to match up with the claims made about SR. What should be clear to anyone of high intelligence by this point is that the simplest of the viable models which fits the facts is LET, and NONE of the viable models are SR. Importantly, LET itself is not SR because it doesn't come with any of SR's dogma which would require the universe to run on magic.

Every frame you are in is the preferred frame to measure c. No other frame will allow your measurements to be valid. All frames are equally valid in their measurement of c. You are using time without understanding time correctly. If you are using light clocks to measure light distances how can they be any different value when your tick rate is measured as the speed of light in any frame. You use tick rate as your measurement so you use light as your measurement of light. Really what are you expecting? Do you consider that magic?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 30/07/2017 21:25:14
The speed of light is c relative to me only in special occasions. ... Light does not pass you at c in an accelerated frame. That is not what Relativity SR says. That may be what the scientific community says and if they say that they are incorrect. You may be stuck in that belief by listening to incorrect information. Remember when I said words can be ambiguous. Its your interpretation that is at fault not SR. ... In all frames the speed of light is measured to be the same in a vacuum. That is not!!! the same as the speed of light relative to you is the same in every frame.

You are now describing a model with an absolute frame, and that means you're not talking about SR.

Quote
Its not an impossible task using Einstein's interpretation over some of the less than perfect interpretations. Realizing Einstein's interpretation is a challenge that many who teach relativity fail in his interpretation. You may be a victim and see the failure. That is an important part of progress.

You appear to be a victim of it because you can't explain what this model is and show how it relates to the models I've simulated. What magic does it do that can't be turned into a simulation? Why are you incapable of explaining what it does?

Quote
I'm covering all the interpretations.

Except the one that is correct.

Then where is it? Tell me how it works. This magical model has escaped the entire physics community and it's only been found by you through your unique interpretation skills which enable you to understand Einstein's theory better than even he did.

Quote
Every frame you are in is the preferred frame to measure c. No other frame will allow your measurements to be valid.

Have you any idea just how daft that sounds?

Quote
All frames are equally valid in their measurement of c.

On a round trip.

Quote
You are using time without understanding time correctly.

I understand it fine, and I can lock it to process to prove that I understand it correctly and that other people's voodoo-time doesn't work.

Quote
If you are using light clocks to measure light distances how can they be any different value when your tick rate is measured as the speed of light in any frame. You use tick rate as your measurement so you use light as your measurement of light. Really what are you expecting? Do you consider that magic?

How do you imagine that telling me what everyone already knows will help in any way? The issue is how you coordinate events to eliminate the unhappening of events. How do you coordinate the ticking rates of clocks on different paths without using the time of an absolute frame? Address that directly and show me the mechanism that gets around the problem. Why should a clock tick more frequently on one path than another? What controls that? You've filled pages with guff claiming you have a model that works, but you still can't get to the point where you show its mechanism.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 31/07/2017 12:29:48
You are now describing a model with an absolute frame, and that means you're not talking about SR.

I am not discussing your interpretation of SR.


You appear to be a victim of it because you can't explain what this model is and show how it relates to the models I've simulated. What magic does it do that can't be turned into a simulation? Why are you incapable of explaining what it does?

None of your simulations are my interpretation of SR.


Then where is it? Tell me how it works. This magical model has escaped the entire physics community and it's only been found by you through your unique interpretation skills which enable you to understand Einstein's theory better than even he did

No, but I put it into a mechanical basis of energy.

Then where is it? Tell me how it works. This magical model has escaped the entire physics community and it's only been found by you through your unique interpretation skills which enable you to understand Einstein's theory better than even he did

You have to be in the right mindset to learn someone else's understanding. You are not in that mindset. You view SR as wrong and nothing will persuade you your interpretation is incorrect. I have been there. You need to overcome your own objections to see more clearly the deeper meaning.

 
Have you any idea just how daft that sounds?
Yes.

On a round trip

Yes if that is the way of measurement. Perfection is not possible.

.

I understand it fine, and I can lock it to process to prove that I understand it correctly and that other people's voodoo-time doesn't work.

There is no such thing as time in the sense you are trying to use it against SR.

How do you imagine that telling me what everyone already knows will help in any way? The issue is how you coordinate events to eliminate the unhappening of events. How do you coordinate the ticking rates of clocks on different paths without using the time of an absolute frame? Address that directly and show me the mechanism that gets around the problem. Why should a clock tick more frequently on one path than another? What controls that? You've filled pages with guff claiming you have a model that works, but you still can't get to the point where you show its mechanism.

They know it works because the observations follow SR and GR. Why it works is unknown and why we are discussing it here.
Abstract thinking is a skill set. Some have more talent than others. Einstein was amazing in this talent. I have a unique perspective because I was not formally trained in physics other than my courses. I did not get into theory until later on in life. The MMX was difficult to overcome but information transfer demanded a matrix. Energy itself is the matrix and the only one excluded from the MMX. It solves and answers all of the questions of why.
And yes I do understand how daft that sounds. Who would consider such a daft idea? If all other choices are impossible the one that is left must be true. I can explain what I consider energy to move the electrons and photons which include all spectrum waves.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 31/07/2017 18:25:52
David Cooper;

Quote
I can't see why you have one of the rockets turn round on the t=2.00 line and not get back to the centre line at the t=4.00 line as it should. It is doing the same speed relative to its home planet on both legs and cannot get back to the centre at the t=3.75 line.

If I corrected my mistake of using the same speed for both rockets, then t=4.00.

Quote
You're reading this mode wrongly. Each object leaves a solid trail of itself behind it which the other objects see at the same altitude as themselves.

It doesn't conform to a standard Minkowski spacetime diagram with a vertical ct axis and a horizontal x axis, and speed corresponding to the angle of the timeline. The typical diagram describes events in terms of one selected reference frame, and any other clock rates require a notation such as widely spaced tick marks.
Objects don't leave ghost trails, If they did we could locate the origin of light emission and calculate absolute motion in space.

Quote
In the same way, light travels up the screen at infinite speed in this mode because it travels all distances in zero time while contracting them to zero distance.

The graphic is supposed to be B's perception of events. Instantaneous light propagation was overturned in the 1600's based on the work of Ole Romer. Either your interpretation is wrong or the block universe model is wrong, or both. Pilots don't fly to airports that aren't there. NASA launches  probes to planets with no 'event meshing failures'.

Quote
Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,
A perpetual world line. Histories of positions, and only real on paper. The diagrams are not like geographical maps, but people misinterpret them as such. The greater problem is the excessive abstraction, leading people to accept the theory as a substitute for reality.

Quote
Based on the rules of their model - if time is not allowed to run slow on any paths (under the control of the time of a preferred frame), then they must move up the diagram in the way I have shown.
There is no preferred frame controlling unfolding of events. That is a personal belief by many including yourself. All observation locations cannot record the same time for any event. Their are two types of events, 'a', when the event occurs with light emission propagating outward in all directions, and 'b', when the light is detected by a human observer or a device under their control. Reasoning on cause and effect, you can't observe an event until after it happens, therefore the time of the b-event cannot influence its happening.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 31/07/2017 21:47:44
I am not discussing your interpretation of SR.

The logical implications of what you said lead to the model you were describing having an absolute frame.

Quote
None of your simulations are my interpretation of SR.

So you claim, but you can't explain how your model is run.

Quote
You have to be in the right mindset to learn someone else's understanding. You are not in that mindset. You view SR as wrong and nothing will persuade you your interpretation is incorrect. I have been there. You need to overcome your own objections to see more clearly the deeper meaning.

I'm open to exploring any model anyone puts forward, but you won't put the relevant parts of your model forward to show how it runs, and the reason you won't do it is either that it can't run or that it isn't what you claim it to be.

Quote
There is no such thing as time in the sense you are trying to use it against SR.

Given that I have shown how to lock time to process, then you are denying process too, and causation is thereby thrown out the window with it.

Quote
They know it works because the observations follow SR and GR. Why it works is unknown and why we are discussing it here.

Their model doesn't run in a simulation - they either have to use a different model from the one they claim they're using, i.e. one that has an absolute frame, or they use an eternal block model which completely fails to account for the generation of the block.

Quote
Abstract thinking is a skill set.

Which very few people can handle, and many who think they can handle it fail to do correctly.

Quote
Some have more talent than others. Einstein was amazing in this talent.

Einstein was blind to contradictions.

Quote
I have a unique perspective because I was not formally trained in physics other than my courses. I did not get into theory until later on in life. The MMX was difficult to overcome but information transfer demanded a matrix. Energy itself is the matrix and the only one excluded from the MMX. It solves and answers all of the questions of why.

You have merely fooled yourself into thinking you have a functional model when you manifestly don't. I asked you before if your model can handle a series of cause-and-effect events along a single path where the events unfold one before another before another. You didn't answer. If your model can't handle that, it's broken. If your model doesn't allow befores and afters, it's broken. If it can handle that, the next thing to look at is how it coordinates the action with three such paths forming a triangle in a Spacetime diagram. If you can't explain how your model handles something as simple as that, your model is simply not functional.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 31/07/2017 22:38:47
It doesn't conform to a standard Minkowski spacetime diagram with a vertical ct axis and a horizontal x axis, and speed corresponding to the angle of the timeline. The typical diagram describes events in terms of one selected reference frame, and any other clock rates require a notation such as widely spaced tick marks.

It conforms exactly to it, but with the additional feature of showing how a block universe would have to be generated under the rule that no clocks run slow.

Quote
Objects don't leave ghost trails, If they did we could locate the origin of light emission and calculate absolute motion in space.

The idea with the block universe is that every object has four dimensions rather than three, and one of those is a length in the time dimension stretching from where the object first existed all the way to where it stops existing. Only one point of that line is visible at any one moment to any observer inside the universe, so they cannot see a trail. There is also nothing ghostly about it - it's as substantial at any point on the line as any other. However, to generate the block in the first place, these pasta-like objects have to be fed in at one end of the block (the past) and run through the block into position. If they are run into position at speeds such that their clocks all tick at the same rate, they do what mode 1 shows, and the mess of event-meshing failures that initially occur will be driven out of the block at the future end after the strands of "pasta" change the way they interact with each other further down when the later arrivals catch up with other objects that they're supposed to meet.

Quote
Quote
In the same way, light travels up the screen at infinite speed in this mode because it travels all distances in zero time while contracting them to zero distance.

The graphic is supposed to be B's perception of events. Instantaneous light propagation was overturned in the 1600's based on the work of Ole Romer. Either your interpretation is wrong or the block universe model is wrong, or both. Pilots don't fly to airports that aren't there. NASA launches  probes to planets with no 'event meshing failures'.

In the block universe model, light travels all paths in zero time while shrinking them to zero distance. This turns the speed of light into an illusion, but then all movement is an illusion in the block universe model as nothing really moves at all unless you add a generation phase for it, and during that generation phase, light moves up the screen at infinite speed, but it is not moving with infinite speed because it is not covering any actual distance at all. Much as I think the block universe idea is ridiculous, I still have to take it seriously and look at whether it is in any way viable, and it is potentially viable - you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures, but any failures would be corrected over time (Newtonian) and everyone's memory of those failures would be modified to match, erasing all trace of them.

Quote
Quote
Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,

A perpetual world line. Histories of positions, and only real on paper. The diagrams are not like geographical maps, but people misinterpret them as such. The greater problem is the excessive abstraction, leading people to accept the theory as a substitute for reality.

The reason many people take the block universe seriously is that it allows them to change frame without causing events to unhappen - the block is unchanged by frame changes, at least in terms of which events have happened and which haven't, because they've all happened in advance and the entire future already exists. It is interesting that this aspect of the Lorentz invariance is there even during the construction phase of such a block, as mode 1 of my diagram shows - when you change frame, no events unhappen and no new events happen either just in the course of making that frame change.

Clearly though, a block universe is more complex than a simple universe where the past no longer exists and the future doesn't exist yet - it only seems simpler if you don't account for how it's generated and if you're prepared to throw out any real kind of causality, but even then you end up with one of the most unlikely things ever imagined because all the apparent causality written through the block has to be accounted for by nothing more than luck.

Quote
Quote
Based on the rules of their model - if time is not allowed to run slow on any paths (under the control of the time of a preferred frame), then they must move up the diagram in the way I have shown.
There is no preferred frame controlling unfolding of events.

Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?

Quote
That is a personal belief by many including yourself.

All personal beliefs should be put aside here and be replaced by reasoned analysis (although that inevitably leads to beliefs once you understand what isn't possible and what isn't simplest) - I've shown you all the different models ways of doing things (it's possible to make things that can be described as other models, but they are merely obfuscated versions of the ones I've shown) and you reject all the viable ones, choosing instead one that disproves itself by producing contradictions (which show up when events unhappen as you change frame) and which still depend on an absolute-frame mechanism for their functionality.

Quote
All observation locations cannot record the same time for any event. Their are two types of events, 'a', when the event occurs with light emission propagating outward in all directions, and 'b', when the light is detected by a human observer or a device under their control. Reasoning on cause and effect, you can't observe an event until after it happens, therefore the time of the b-event cannot influence its happening.

Don't trip up over the illusions. If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong. Mode 2 is a fantasy model and it can't be used to run the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 01/08/2017 12:38:18
It doesn't conform to a standard Minkowski spacetime diagram with a vertical ct axis and a horizontal x axis, and speed corresponding to the angle of the timeline. The typical diagram describes events in terms of one selected reference frame, and any other clock rates require a notation such as widely spaced tick marks.

It conforms exactly to it, but with the additional feature of showing how a block universe would have to be generated under the rule that no clocks run slow.

Quote
Objects don't leave ghost trails, If they did we could locate the origin of light emission and calculate absolute motion in space.

The idea with the block universe is that every object has four dimensions rather than three, and one of those is a length in the time dimension stretching from where the object first existed all the way to where it stops existing. Only one point of that line is visible at any one moment to any observer inside the universe, so they cannot see a trail. There is also nothing ghostly about it - it's as substantial at any point on the line as any other. However, to generate the block in the first place, these pasta-like objects have to be fed in at one end of the block (the past) and run through the block into position. If they are run into position at speeds such that their clocks all tick at the same rate, they do what mode 1 shows, and the mess of event-meshing failures that initially occur will be driven out of the block at the future end after the strands of "pasta" change the way they interact with each other further down when the later arrivals catch up with other objects that they're supposed to meet.

Quote
Quote
In the same way, light travels up the screen at infinite speed in this mode because it travels all distances in zero time while contracting them to zero distance.

The graphic is supposed to be B's perception of events. Instantaneous light propagation was overturned in the 1600's based on the work of Ole Romer. Either your interpretation is wrong or the block universe model is wrong, or both. Pilots don't fly to airports that aren't there. NASA launches  probes to planets with no 'event meshing failures'.

In the block universe model, light travels all paths in zero time while shrinking them to zero distance. This turns the speed of light into an illusion, but then all movement is an illusion in the block universe model as nothing really moves at all unless you add a generation phase for it, and during that generation phase, light moves up the screen at infinite speed, but it is not moving with infinite speed because it is not covering any actual distance at all. Much as I think the block universe idea is ridiculous, I still have to take it seriously and look at whether it is in any way viable, and it is potentially viable - you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures, but any failures would be corrected over time (Newtonian) and everyone's memory of those failures would be modified to match, erasing all trace of them.

Quote
Quote
Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,

A perpetual world line. Histories of positions, and only real on paper. The diagrams are not like geographical maps, but people misinterpret them as such. The greater problem is the excessive abstraction, leading people to accept the theory as a substitute for reality.

The reason many people take the block universe seriously is that it allows them to change frame without causing events to unhappen - the block is unchanged by frame changes, at least in terms of which events have happened and which haven't, because they've all happened in advance and the entire future already exists. It is interesting that this aspect of the Lorentz invariance is there even during the construction phase of such a block, as mode 1 of my diagram shows - when you change frame, no events unhappen and no new events happen either just in the course of making that frame change.

Clearly though, a block universe is more complex than a simple universe where the past no longer exists and the future doesn't exist yet - it only seems simpler if you don't account for how it's generated and if you're prepared to throw out any real kind of causality, but even then you end up with one of the most unlikely things ever imagined because all the apparent causality written through the block has to be accounted for by nothing more than luck.

Quote
Quote
Based on the rules of their model - if time is not allowed to run slow on any paths (under the control of the time of a preferred frame), then they must move up the diagram in the way I have shown.
There is no preferred frame controlling unfolding of events.

Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?

Quote
That is a personal belief by many including yourself.

All personal beliefs should be put aside here and be replaced by reasoned analysis (although that inevitably leads to beliefs once you understand what isn't possible and what isn't simplest) - I've shown you all the different models ways of doing things (it's possible to make things that can be described as other models, but they are merely obfuscated versions of the ones I've shown) and you reject all the viable ones, choosing instead one that disproves itself by producing contradictions (which show up when events unhappen as you change frame) and which still depend on an absolute-frame mechanism for their functionality.

Quote
All observation locations cannot record the same time for any event. Their are two types of events, 'a', when the event occurs with light emission propagating outward in all directions, and 'b', when the light is detected by a human observer or a device under their control. Reasoning on cause and effect, you can't observe an event until after it happens, therefore the time of the b-event cannot influence its happening.

Don't trip up over the illusions. If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong. Mode 2 is a fantasy model and it can't be used to run the real universe.

Your definition of time is really timing. Time does not slow down but timing does. That is the ratio of SR. The measurement of tick rate slows as speed increases. If you are part of the frame that your tick rate slows there is no way to measure how much it slows. This is the basis of no fixed timing. Yet there is a fixed time as a constant c. The basis of all timing is c. Your clock measures the available energy left in velocity of an object relative to c. You always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c in all frames. This is the point. You measure the speed of light with the timing of light. You cannot measure the thing you are measuring if that thing is part of the measurement. Electrons are affected similarly. The electron and photon are confounded by the same energy available of relative c.

The distance measurements and tick rate of your clock are confounded in every frame for timing measurements. This is the reason the SoL is measured the same in a vacuum in all frames. Every frame has a different ratio to c but that ratio can not be measured. That is why there is no fixed frame for timing. There is a fixed frame for the basis of time. Energy of motion is c and c is the basis of time. Motion allows life's awareness of the present. There is nothing other than the present motion based on the energy constant.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/08/2017 20:54:15
Your definition of time is really timing. Time does not slow down but timing does.

You have just made a distinction between two things and claimed that my definition of time is the latter, but my definition of time is very clearly the former. Clocks fail to measure all the time that actually passes for them.

Quote
Time does not slow down but timing does. That is the ratio of SR. The measurement of tick rate slows as speed increases. If you are part of the frame that your tick rate slows there is no way to measure how much it slows. This is the basis of no fixed timing. Yet there is a fixed time as a constant c. The basis of all timing is c. Your clock measures the available energy left in velocity of an object relative to c. You always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c in all frames. This is the point. You measure the speed of light with the timing of light. You cannot measure the thing you are measuring if that thing is part of the measurement. Electrons are affected similarly. The electron and photon are confounded by the same energy available of relative c.

Never mind our inability to measure time properly and to tell if we have by luck done so - the universe itself must have a right answer built into it as it runs the unfolding of events. The universe does not fool itself. If light passes one object at c relative to that object in all directions (and I'm talking about the one-way speed of light), light cannot be also be passing a second object at c relative to that second object in all directions if the second object is moving relative to the first object. The first object is stationary in the absolute frame and the second object is moving through that frame - this is an automatic requirement of having a fixed speed limit for light through space because it ties the speed of light to a specific frame which uniquely has the same one-way speed of light relative to that frame in all directions.

Quote
The distance measurements and tick rate of your clock are confounded in every frame for timing measurements. This is the reason the SoL is measured the same in a vacuum in all frames.

Same apparent two-way speed of light, but we shouldn't be fooled by that into thinking the one-way speed of light relative to us doesn't change as we accelerate towards or away from it.

Quote
Every frame has a different ratio to c but that ratio can not be measured. That is why there is no fixed frame for timing.

In saying each frame has a different ratio, you are going against the required dogma of SR which asserts very specifically that there is no absolute frame - variable ratios automatically produce an absolute frame.

Quote
There is a fixed frame for the basis of time. Energy of motion is c and c is the basis of time. Motion allows life's awareness of the present. There is nothing other than the present motion based on the energy constant.

You're not doing SR, but model 3 instead, so why are you arguing with me at all? I've stated very clearly that if you add an absolute frame to SR you can turn it into a potentially-viable model, but real followers of SR refuse to do that because as soon as they accept that there's a preferred frame, they realise they would immediately have to back LET instead because it does the same job without needing the superfluous "time" dimension. They claim they back the simplest model, but they have never actually done so - they merely pretend SR the simplest model by denying that there's an absolute frame so that they can assert that it's simpler than LET (bizarrely ignoring all the extra complexity of the infinite number of contradictions which they thereby introduce into the model, but then none of them are rational and they seem to have no respect for logic whatsoever).

So, are you actually doing model 3 or model 2? If you're for model 3, you've departed from SR. If model 2, you've got contradictions which make events unhappen when you change frame. If you're doing a mixture of models 2 and 3, you're mixing incompatible models. It's really simple stuff, so I can't see why so many people have so much difficulty getting their heads around it all and separating the different models out into different compartments in their mind where they can run them and see how they perform. You'd think my interactive diagram would help them by showing them what happens when you simulate each model, but apparently not. The big boys in SR do the block universe model in order to eliminate the unhappening of events on changing frame, but they then refuse to discuss how their magical block can be generated (because they know it can't be done under the same rules), so they're playing games of avoidance where they stick their heads in the sand. It's a shambles.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 02/08/2017 12:42:13
You have just made a distinction between two things and claimed that my definition of time is the latter, but my definition of time is very clearly the former. Clocks fail to measure all the time that actually passes for them.

There is no such thing as time. We measure one distance by another based on a c frame for everyone.


Never mind our inability to measure time properly and to tell if we have by luck done so - the universe itself must have a right answer built into it as it runs the unfolding of events. The universe does not fool itself. If light passes one object at c relative to that object in all directions (and I'm talking about the one-way speed of light), light cannot be also be passing a second object at c relative to that second object in all directions if the second object is moving relative to the first object. The first object is stationary in the absolute frame and the second object is moving through that frame - this is an automatic requirement of having a fixed speed limit for light through space because it ties the speed of light to a specific frame which uniquely has the same one-way speed of light relative to that frame in all directions

Light moves out as a sphere covering 360 degrees. If that is what you mean by all directions. The frame is c for a photon always. Our measurements of c are for one frame only as relative to that frame only Period.


Same apparent two-way speed of light, but we shouldn't be fooled by that into thinking the one-way speed of light relative to us doesn't change as we accelerate towards or away from it.

Of course it changes. We just cannot measure the change.

In saying each frame has a different ratio, you are going against the required dogma of SR which asserts very specifically that there is no absolute frame - variable ratios automatically produce an absolute frame.

I am only going against your interpretation of SR.

You're not doing SR, but model 3 instead, so why are you arguing with me at all? I've stated very clearly that if you add an absolute frame to SR you can turn it into a potentially-viable model, but real followers of SR refuse to do that because as soon as they accept that there's a preferred frame, they realise they would immediately have to back LET instead because it does the same job without needing the superfluous "time" dimension. They claim they back the simplest model, but they have never actually done so - they merely pretend SR the simplest model by denying that there's an absolute frame so that they can assert that it's simpler than LET (bizarrely ignoring all the extra complexity of the infinite number of contradictions which they thereby introduce into the model, but then none of them are rational and they seem to have no respect for logic whatsoever).So, are you actually doing model 3 or model 2? If you're for model 3, you've departed from SR. If model 2, you've got contradictions which make events unhappen when you change frame. If you're doing a mixture of models 2 and 3, you're mixing incompatible models. It's really simple stuff, so I can't see why so many people have so much difficulty getting their heads around it all and separating the different models out into different compartments in their mind where they can run them and see how they perform. You'd think my interactive diagram would help them by showing them what happens when you simulate each model, but apparently not. The big boys in SR do the block universe model in order to eliminate the unhappening of events on changing frame, but they then refuse to discuss how their magical block can be generated (because they know it can't be done under the same rules), so they're playing games of avoidance where they stick their heads in the sand. It's a shambles.

Not all people understand relativity even if they believe they do. The absolute frame is c. Its of motion itself that we use part of that energy in GR and SR. Its backwards to conventional thinking. That is the entire problem.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/08/2017 13:54:37
Your definition of time is really timing.

Yes, Goc you clearly understand the difference between relative timing and time.   Please use my models as you know more than me, explain my models Goc , lets work together to prove relative correctness?
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Use these two logical statements:

Forward time is directly proportional to the history created

Your next chronological position on the time line is a (tP) ahead of you.




Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 02/08/2017 16:23:02
David Cooper;

Quote
you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures,

Space launches fail, shuttle flights fail and people die. We remember because the events are broadcast worldwide. Do you keep in touch with the real world?

Quote
but any failures would be corrected over time (Newtonian) and everyone's memory of those failures would be modified to match, erasing all trace of them.
Those type of failures can't be corrected, they are permanent.
Who or what would modify or erase them?

You are the only person to use the term "unhappen", and it's most likely your invention. and it's nonsensical, vs the modes 2 and 3 simulations which are at least believable.

Quote
Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?
If events are not coordinated by human influence, or programmed animal and plant behavior, then it's random. A landslide, flood, hurricane, etc, can rearrange the earths surface in many different ways. Quantum physics can produce varied outcomes (expressed in probabilities) from the same state. All these random activities depend on the laws of physics and chemistry and are   not compatible with a predetermined block universe.   

Quote
If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong.

You can't have two different accounts from a single location. More nonsense.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/08/2017 21:15:48
Quote
you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures,

Space launches fail, shuttle flights fail and people die. We remember because the events are broadcast worldwide. Do you keep in touch with the real world?

What makes you imagine that an event-meshing failure equates to such events as a rocket blowing up? Event-meshing failures in relation to NASA probes would involve them taking shortcuts into the future and initially failing to encounter objects that they're supposed to, so if one is supposed to take a gravitational slingshot around Jupiter, the initial arrival of the probe at that location may lead to no gravitational boost because Jupiter doesn't yet exist there as it's still further back in time in the block. When Jupiter catches up with that Spacetime location, a later part of the probe-strand can interact with it and will now be accelerated around Jupiter to follow its predicted path, so this rewrites the event at that Spacetime location and may also rewrite our account of what happened if we were able to detect the previous event-meshing failure, but the end result is that we can maintain no knowledge of it as all recordings of event-meshing failures are automatically rewritten as the events correct themselves. This all refers to generating a block universe, so if you don't think it has anything to do with the real world, that's fine by me, but you should still be doing a better job of getting your head around their theory and the implications of their theory if they're worked through properly.

Quote
Those type of failures can't be corrected, they are permanent.
Who or what would modify or erase them?

They wouldn't need to be permanent at all - the mess could simply be pushed ahead through the block until the content settles down to exhibit no remaining event-meshing failures at all, but those failures necessarily occur during the construction phase if no clocks are allowed to run slow.

Quote
You are the only person to use the term "unhappen", and it's most likely your invention. and it's nonsensical, vs the modes 2 and 3 simulations which are at least believable.

The unhappening clearly takes place with mode 2, so why are you so determined to deny what your eyes can see? Run the diagram in mode 2 until the counter says 360 and then click on the minus or plus button repeatedly to change frame all the way through from frame A to B and back again. Do you not see events happening and unhappening as you change frame? Are you blind?

Quote
Quote
Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?
If events are not coordinated by human influence, or programmed animal and plant behavior, then it's random. A landslide, flood, hurricane, etc, can rearrange the earths surface in many different ways. Quantum physics can produce varied outcomes (expressed in probabilities) from the same state. All these random activities depend on the laws of physics and chemistry and are   not compatible with a predetermined block universe.

The subject here is relativity. When I ask you how the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated, I'm asking something very specific to relativity. How does the universe make clocks run slower on some paths than others and how does it decide which paths to run clocks slow on? That is what you should be addressing.

Quote
Quote
If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong.

You can't have two different accounts from a single location. More nonsense.

You can have two different accounts generated from a single location as to whether an event at a distant location has happened yet or not, and it's that that I'm talking about. If you are at the location where the calculations are being made, you can choose one frame of reference to base your calculations on and determine that the event at the other location has happened, but if you then choose a different frame of reference and do the calculations again, you can determine that the event at the other location has not happened yet. One of those calculations has produced a claim that must be wrong.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/08/2017 21:43:17
There is no such thing as time. We measure one distance by another based on a c frame for everyone.

Do you deny the existence of cause-and-effect process too (which I've already demonstrated can be locked tightly to time)? Denying the existence of time does not help your position at all.

Light moves out as a sphere covering 360 degrees. If that is what you mean by all directions. The frame is c for a photon always. Our measurements of c are for one frame only as relative to that frame only Period.

The bit about "in all directions" is there because there are always some directions across an object where the speed of light will be c relative to the object regardless of how fast the object is moving, but don't let these complications confuse you. Think about a universe with a single space dimension and light moving in two opposite directions relative to objects. If you do that, you won't be diverted away from the issue.

Quote
Same apparent two-way speed of light, but we shouldn't be fooled by that into thinking the one-way speed of light relative to us doesn't change as we accelerate towards or away from it.

Of course it changes. We just cannot measure the change.

You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

Quote
In saying each frame has a different ratio, you are going against the required dogma of SR which asserts very specifically that there is no absolute frame - variable ratios automatically produce an absolute frame.

I am only going against your interpretation of SR.

No - you are going against the mainstream and you are not speaking for SR at all.

Quote
Not all people understand relativity even if they believe they do. The absolute frame is c. Its of motion itself that we use part of that energy in GR and SR. Its backwards to conventional thinking. That is the entire problem

You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 03/08/2017 12:38:45
Do you deny the existence of cause-and-effect process too (which I've already demonstrated can be locked tightly to time)? Denying the existence of time does not help your position at all.

No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.


The bit about "in all directions" is there because there are always some directions across an object where the speed of light will be c relative to the object regardless of how fast the object is moving, but don't let these complications confuse you. Think about a universe with a single space dimension and light moving in two opposite directions relative to objects. If you do that, you won't be diverted away from the issue

We both agree light relative to a frame has a different relativity to another frame.

You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

I have only departed from your understanding of SR.

No - you are going against the mainstream and you are not speaking for SR at all.

Yes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.

You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.

That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 03/08/2017 17:56:27
David Cooper;

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.
A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.
Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.
B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.
Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.
E has occured for B but not for A.
What is your opinion?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 04/08/2017 12:12:26
In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?

I am not David but I would agree. I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 04/08/2017 23:26:02
The adverts in the forum make my machine freeze repeatedly, so I need to minimise page loads to reduce that. As a result, this post is a reply to three posts.

No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.

So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.

Quote
You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

I have only departed from your understanding of SR.

No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.

Quote
Yes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.

Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.

Quote
You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.

That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.
A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.
Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.
B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.
Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.
E has occured for B but not for A.
What is your opinion?

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?

I am not David but I would agree.

Eh! You agree with a question?

Quote
I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable.

What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 05/08/2017 12:59:13
So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.

That is correct. We cannot travel to the past and we cannot live in tomorrow. Time travel is just science fiction.


No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.

I will have to disagree. SR does not exclude an absolute frame. It just says you cannot measure based on a preferred frame. Einstein in one of his papers even mentioned except possibly c. c is the absolute frame which all measurements are created. It is motion itself. A concept you are not able to recognize as a possibility.

Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.

Einstein recognized c as a possible absolute frame. Actually it probably could be described as Newtonian time c the absolute frame. Then you recognize you cannot measure from that frame accurately because you cannot use a measuring devise that includes what you are measuring. You cannot measure light using light.

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

Once you understand correctly it is the only thing that makes sense.

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

You appear not to want to understand the measurement is only relative to the frame being measured.



The adverts in the forum make my machine freeze repeatedly, so I need to minimise page loads to reduce that. As a result, this post is a reply to three posts.

No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.

So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.

Quote
You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

I have only departed from your understanding of SR.

No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.

Quote
Yes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.

Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.

Quote
You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.

That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.
A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.
Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.
B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.
Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.
E has occured for B but not for A.
What is your opinion?

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?

I am not David but I would agree.

Eh! You agree with a question?

Quote
I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable.

What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.

He is checking you ability to see logic. You failed.
Eh! You agree with a question?

Yes I agree with his opinion set as a question.
What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.

LET and SR are compatible.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 05/08/2017 20:22:53
D.C.
Quote
Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true.
Both claims are true based on the info each observer has. An event happens once and is perceived many times.

Quote
If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.
That’s a problem for the person doing the simulation. You can have two characters doing things independently of the other. Video games do this all the time.
And the universe does not think, or decide which clocks run slow.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/08/2017 22:55:21
I will have to disagree. SR does not exclude an absolute frame.

You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.

Quote
It just says you cannot measure based on a preferred frame. Einstein in one of his papers even mentioned except possibly c. c is the absolute frame which all measurements are created. It is motion itself. A concept you are not able to recognize as a possibility.

c is not a frame or reference and it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that it is, so why do you keep making such a claim? If you mean the frame of a photon, which frame is frame c if you have two photons moving in opposite directions? If you mean a frame half way in between those two photons' frames, then you're merely talking about an absolute frame, the frame in which light travels at c relative to it in all directions, and that frame is not called c.

Quote
Einstein recognized c as a possible absolute frame.

Really. What did he call it?

Quote
Actually it probably could be described as Newtonian time c the absolute frame.

What a descriptive mess!

Quote
c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

Once you understand correctly it is the only thing that makes sense.

If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame c.

Quote
You appear not to want to understand the measurement is only relative to the frame being measured.

You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.

Quote
He is checking you ability to see logic. You failed.

Hardly! I'm the only one who's being fully logical about this.

Quote
Yes I agree with his opinion set as a question.

That is weird.

Quote
LET and SR are compatible.

No they aren't, but it's good that you're trying to move in the direction of LET because it shows that deep down you do understand that SR is broken.

____________________________________________________________________

Quote
Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true.
Both claims are true based on the info each observer has. An event happens once and is perceived many times.

Both claims are conditionally true, which means they're governed by an IF clause which says, if this frame is the absolute frame, then this account is true. The two IF clauses (one for each account) cannot both be true, so whichever one is false, the account tied to it which is conditionally true is actually false because the condition is false.

Quote
That’s a problem for the person doing the simulation. You can have two characters doing things independently of the other. Video games do this all the time.

The universe is running the show and it is not putting on a different show for each player in which the same events play out with a different frame of reference being used for each player such that event M happens in one version of the universe before event N while in another version of the universe event N happens before event M. Even if it was doing something so extravagantly bizarre though, you also have the problem of different players changing the frame they're using as they accelerate, which means if the version of the universe they're in changes frame to keep up with their wishes, it will have to unhappen some distant events while changing frame.

If a million different players of a game are playing it independently offline, they will have a million instantiations of the game all running independently to generate the virtual universe containing the action, and the action will quickly diverge until they're all doing different things. If the million players are instead playing a game together online, they will have one single version of the game in a data centre which keeps telling every remote copy of the game what's happening at the central version so that they all remain fully compatible with the events there. The universe is like that - a single version which does things once and doesn't then unhappen and rehappen them.

Quote
And the universe does not think, or decide which clocks run slow.

The universe determines which clocks run slow.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 06/08/2017 15:18:33
You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.

Normally meant is a very big distinction. Many believe they understand Relativity while its only the math that is understood.
c is not a frame or reference and it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that it is, so why do you keep making such a claim? If you mean the frame of a photon, which frame is frame c if you have two photons moving in opposite directions? If you mean a frame half way in between those two photons' frames, then you're merely talking about an absolute frame, the frame in which light travels at c relative to it in all directions, and that frame is not called c

I understand your confusion. You were never taught c was a absolute frame of energy. Constant and can go no faster. The postulate of c actually creates the absolute frame. Your understanding only allows a absolute non moving no energy frame. The problem is all other frames are a subset of frame c.

Really. What did he call it?

A medium that transferred information.

What a descriptive mess!

Yes of course if understanding relativity was easy everyone would understand.

You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.

You keep making a straw man argument. What we view with light does not represent a valid interpretation of events. The math from your frame is as close as you can get visually. To believe events happen in the order you view them is a belief in a infinite speed of light. If light were infinite we could not distinguish objects at all. Beyond 13.6 billion light years by our frame light is a homogenous mixture that does not allow for images.

 
If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame c

What moves the electron? You do not have a clue to that let alone fractal views of relative c for a frame of mass.

You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.

What you view by observed position is equally true. Your fractal view is your measurement to relative c frame. All frames measure the same relative SOL. The funny thing is that has to be if you measure light speed with light. You cannot measure something if what you are measuring is part of the measurement. This takes a depth of understanding.

Hardly! I'm the only one who's being fully logical about this.

Yes you are being logical to your understanding. Fully logical might be beyond anyone's understanding.

That is weird

phyti set a scenario and asked if you agreed with his opinion. Yes I agree with his opinion. Do you consider it weird to agree with someone's opinion? That might be telling.

 
No they aren't, but it's good that you're trying to move in the direction of LET because it shows that deep down you do understand that SR is broken.

The math's are the same. Main stream might be prejudice about an absolute frame but SR does not discriminate and neither did Einstein in his 1920 papers. Main stream ignored him after that. Your beef is with main stream not SR per say.

Both claims are conditionally true, which means they're governed by an IF clause which says, if this frame is the absolute frame, then this account is true. The two IF clauses (one for each account) cannot both be true, so whichever one is false, the account tied to it which is conditionally true is actually false because the condition is false.

 Lets take two observers 180 degrees apart. There are two objects between them that are separated. The two observers are A and B. The two objects are C and D. Event one C flashes and reflects off of D. A observer sees C flash than D reflect. So observer A views C than D. Observer B views C and D simultaneous by position. The reason is because when C event reaches D both the flash event and the reflection travel at the same rate to observer B.

Nothing is un-happening because of your observed position. They are two different positions. No view with light is God's eye valid. You can never view the present. Only the God's eye position is the present. I believe in Relativity and not in the God's eye view.



The universe is running the show and it is not putting on a different show for each player in which the same events play out with a different frame of reference being used for each player such that event M happens in one version of the universe before event N while in another version of the universe event N happens before event M. Even if it was doing something so extravagantly bizarre though, you also have the problem of different players changing the frame they're using as they accelerate, which means if the version of the universe they're in changes frame to keep up with their wishes, it will have to unhappen some distant events while changing frame.

No view is valid


If a million different players of a game are playing it independently offline, they will have a million instantiations of the game all running independently to generate the virtual universe containing the action, and the action will quickly diverge until they're all doing different things. If the million players are instead playing a game together online, they will have one single version of the game in a data centre which keeps telling every remote copy of the game what's happening at the central version so that they all remain fully compatible with the events there. The universe is like that - a single version which does things once and doesn't then unhappen and

Each are different a million different frames not the same as a single universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/08/2017 21:35:54
You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.

Normally meant is a very big distinction. Many believe they understand Relativity while its only the math that is understood.

Normally, in this case, means the qualified people who tell everyone what SR is and who would ban you from physics forums if you told them they are wrong about what SR is and what Einstein said it is. You do not represent the mainstream on SR, but you don't represent Einstein either. He attached some very specific dogma to it which excludes the existence of an absolute frame.

Quote
I understand your confusion. You were never taught c was a absolute frame of energy. Constant and can go no faster. The postulate of c actually creates the absolute frame. Your understanding only allows a absolute non moving no energy frame. The problem is all other frames are a subset of frame c.

You are misusing the word frame by calling c a frame.

Quote
Really. What did he call it?

A medium that transferred information.

Did he call it a frame? Why are you calling it a frame when it is not a frame?

Quote
You keep making a straw man argument.

There is no straw man involved. A simulation does one thing. The universe does one thing - it does not maintain all events as both happened and not-yet-happened at the same time. They happen once and definitively, and then they don't unhappen.

Quote
What we view with light does not represent a valid interpretation of events.

You clearly still don't understand how the diagrams work and what they represent - they show the God view and remove all the distortions that come from communication delays.

Quote
The math from your frame is as close as you can get visually. To believe events happen in the order you view them is a belief in a infinite speed of light. If light were infinite we could not distinguish objects at all. Beyond 13.6 billion light years by our frame light is a homogenous mixture that does not allow for images.

You're not even in the argument - you still misunderstand the basics. Forget about what can be seen and what can't be seen. The issue is about when things happen relative to other events at other locations.

Quote
If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame c

What moves the electron? You do not have a clue to that let alone fractal views of relative c for a frame of mass.

We're talking about relativity and not about what moves an electron. It doesn't matter how you move an electron - it makes no difference to the event coordination issues.

Quote
What you view by observed position is equally true.

If you see something happen, it's happened. The issue is about things further away that you can't see happening yet.

Quote
Your fractal view is your measurement to relative c frame.

What do you mean by fractal? I can't see any connection with the subject.

Quote
All frames measure the same relative SOL.

and all but one of them get it wrong because they base the measurements on a false assumption.

Quote
The funny thing is that has to be if you measure light speed with light. You cannot measure something if what you are measuring is part of the measurement. This takes a depth of understanding.

What takes depth of understanding is getting to the point where you stop being fooled by measurements based on false assumptions and realise that the accounts of reality which different frames produce are not compatible.

Quote
Yes you are being logical to your understanding. Fully logical might be beyond anyone's understanding.

I am using the logic accepted by mathematics and am applying it. It shows that logic and SR are not compatible with each other, so one of them is broken.

Quote
phyti set a scenario and asked if you agreed with his opinion. Yes I agree with his opinion. Do you consider it weird to agree with someone's opinion? That might be telling.

A question is not an opinion. There is no opinion there.

Quote
The math's are the same. Main stream might be prejudice about an absolute frame but SR does not discriminate and neither did Einstein in his 1920 papers. Main stream ignored him after that. Your beef is with main stream not SR per say.

Einstein was with the mob - he set the dogma in place. If you want to make out that Einstein was in the LET camp, that's going to be a hard one to get anyone to accept.

Quote
Lets take two observers 180 degrees apart.

That's a good start!

Quote
There are two objects between them that are separated. The two observers are A and B. The two objects are C and D. Event one C flashes and reflects off of D. A observer sees C flash than D reflect. So observer A views C than D. Observer B views C and D simultaneous by position. The reason is because when C event reaches D both the flash event and the reflection travel at the same rate to observer B.

Nothing is un-happening because of your observed position. They are two different positions. No view with light is God's eye valid. You can never view the present. Only the God's eye position is the present. I believe in Relativity and not in the God's eye view.

This just shows how far you are from even beginning to understand the issue I've been discussing. You're fixated on light communication limitations and can't see beyond that. You have created two events, one at C and one at D, and in every frame of reference, C must happen before D. If you had any inkling of an idea what the real issue is, you'd have two events, one at C and one at D which in some frames are simultaneous. Then you would look at your A and B observers and ask what they think. One would say that they saw the event at C before they saw the event at D and the other would say the opposite, but that's got nothing to do with the issue. Both A and B would say that the two events were simultaneous regardless of which event they saw happen first if the events C and D both happened at the same moment in the frame or reference used by A and B to calculate when those events occurred. They are not stupid - they correct for the communication delays and end up with an account of the action which you would see in the God view (with the God view based on that frame). You are still at such a beginner's level that you reject the God view (which gives a clear view of the action) and allow yourself to be misled by views warped by communication delays. If you could ever get to the level of understanding required to discuss this subject properly, you would then realise that if you change frame, you then generate accounts claiming that C happens before D and that D happens before C (which cannot happen with the example you built where C must always happen before D). In my version of the experiment, as you simulate the unfolding of events with the coordination governed by one frame, both C and D may be simultaneous. Change the frame at that point and you have to unhappen one of them.

Quote
No view is valid

That's as good as claiming that the universe doesn't exist.

Quote
Each are different a million different frames not the same as a single universe.

If they're all playing online with a single version of the virtual universe, it is directly equivalent to the real universe with the same events happening for all and not unhappening, although there's no relativity aspect tied up in it because all the players are effectively at rest in the same frame. If you were to add a relativity aspect to the game to deal with players moving fast from one planet to another, you would either need to slow down activity for some of them (based on an absolute frame) to coordinate the actions, or you'd run into event-meshing failures.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/08/2017 12:38:52
Normally, in this case, means the qualified people who tell everyone what SR is and who would ban you from physics forums if you told them they are wrong about what SR is and what Einstein said it is. You do not represent the mainstream on SR, but you don't represent Einstein either. He attached some very specific dogma to it which excludes the existence of an absolute frame

In the past the qualified people believed if you sailed to far you would fall off the Earth. The qualified people do not understand the reason for gravity and magnetism. I believe I represent Einstein's SR.

You are misusing the word frame by calling c a frame.

Frames are distinguished by the clocks tick rate. At c there is no tick rate. That is the absolute frame just not what you were expecting.


Did he call it a frame? Why are you calling it a frame when it is not a frame?

Consider it the absolute frame.

You clearly still don't understand how the diagrams work and what they represent - they show the God view and remove all the distortions that come from communication delays.

God's eye is not relativity.

You're not even in the argument - you still misunderstand the basics. Forget about what can be seen and what can't be seen. The issue is about when things happen relative to other events at other locations

That is not relativity.

We're talking about relativity and not about what moves an electron. It doesn't matter how you move an electron - it makes no difference to the event coordination issues.

It doesn't matter why the electron moves? You fail to include all in your understanding. That is why you misunderstand SR.

What do you mean by fractal? I can't see any connection with the subject

There is a base of understanding you are missing if you do not understand fractal. Gulliver's travels is based on fractal views.
and all but one of them get it wrong because they base the measurements on a false assumption

Or you on false understanding. If you do not understand the fractal aspect of the view in a frame than you do not understand relativity.

This just shows how far you are from even beginning to understand the issue I've been discussing. You're fixated on light communication limitations and can't see beyond that.

Which is the basis of relativity.

That's as good as claiming that the universe doesn't exist.

Hardly, no view is of the present.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/08/2017 23:14:09
In the past the qualified people believed if you sailed to far you would fall off the Earth. The qualified people do not understand the reason for gravity and magnetism. I believe I represent Einstein's SR.

You really need to warn people whenever you tell them what SR says, is and does that you are giving them a 3D variant of it which has an absolute frame and which is really a mangled understanding of LET.

Quote
Frames are distinguished by the clocks tick rate. At c there is no tick rate. That is the absolute frame just not what you were expecting.

You have an infinite number of such "frames" all moving relative to each other, so it's not a frame.

Quote
God's eye is not relativity.

God views are simply representations showing things with the communication delays in seeing the action removed. They can even be taken as photos using referrence-frame cameras. They provide clear views of the action and make it much easier to calculate how relativity relates to everything.

Quote
You're not even in the argument - you still misunderstand the basics. Forget about what can be seen and what can't be seen. The issue is about when things happen relative to other events at other locations

That is not relativity.

Of course it is. You're not doing relativity but are mistaking communication delay rubbish for it instead! There really isn't any point in discussing relativity with you any further if you still haven't worked out what it is!

Quote
It doesn't matter why the electron moves? You fail to include all in your understanding. That is why you misunderstand SR.

It's irrelevant.

Quote
There is a base of understanding you are missing if you do not understand fractal. Gulliver's travels is based on fractal views.

I've never read it - heard a few chunks narrated long ago but it wasn't interesting. I shouldn't really ask, but in for a penny, in for a pound: what has fractal got to do with relativity?

Quote
and all but one of them get it wrong because they base the measurements on a false assumption

Or you on false understanding. If you do not understand the fractal aspect of the view in a frame than you do not understand relativity.

Hardly - relativity can be understood from the God view (as in standard representations of frames of reference), and communication delays are just a layer of obfuscation on the top which you need to understand how to calculate around. Your understanding of relativity is completely ****ed because you've mistaken something else entirely for it.

Quote
This just shows how far you are from even beginning to understand the issue I've been discussing. You're fixated on light communication limitations and can't see beyond that.

Which is the basis of relativity.

You've got to stop doing that! It's a diversion away from relativity and it's blinded you to the entire subject.

Quote
That's as good as claiming that the universe doesn't exist.

Hardly, no view is of the present.

There is a God view of the present for the frame of your choice which shows predictions of the current state of that frame. It can be photographed by a reference-frame camera, so it's a real view.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 08/08/2017 12:27:48
You really need to warn people whenever you tell them what SR says, is and does that you are giving them a 3D variant of it which has an absolute frame and which is really a mangled understanding of LET.

I consider main streams understanding as mangled. Their view is no absolute frame. Einstein claimed the possibility of c as an absolute frame. I am just agreeing with Einstein. If your understanding is better than his I might not have your ability.


You have an infinite number of such "frames" all moving relative to each other, so it's not a frame

c would be the absolute frame which all others are tied into. Constant energy in space.




God views are simply representations showing things with the communication delays in seeing the action removed. They can even be taken as photos using referrence-frame cameras. They provide clear views of the action and make it much easier to calculate how relativity relates to everything.

My understanding of a Gods view is of the present which is impossible for mere mortals. We can only view relativity.


Of course it is. You're not doing relativity but are mistaking communication delay rubbish for it instead!

Simultaneity of Relativity? Rubbish?


There really isn't any point in discussing relativity with you any further if you still haven't worked out what it is!

Not if you believe Simultaneity of Relativity is Rubbish.


It's irrelevant.

If you believe the cause of motion of the electron is irrelevant than so is your understanding.


I've never read it - heard a few chunks narrated long ago but it wasn't interesting. I shouldn't really ask, but in for a penny, in for a pound: what has fractal got to do with relativity?

Its the basis for all frames measuring the same speed of light in a vacuum. Our view is distorted fractally in every frame. Expand your understanding you are fairly bright.

 
Hardly - relativity can be understood from the God view (as in standard representations of frames of reference), and communication delays are just a layer of obfuscation on the top which you need to understand how to calculate around. Your understanding of relativity is completely ****ed because you've mistaken something else entirely for it

We all view with an eye to falsify. Try the eye of understanding.

There is a God view of the present for the frame of your choice which shows predictions of the current state of that frame. It can be photographed by a reference-frame camera, so it's a real view.

And no view is valid because of simultaneity of relativity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 08/08/2017 18:19:37
David Cooper;
Mode 2 and mode 3 are the same, same locations and times for each event.
In mode 1, the rockets are moving in time to agree with their dilated readings. That's unreal, and why they arrive before the planet. Your misinterpretation of time dilation affecting the motion of the object, is incorrect, which is the cause of 'event meshing failures'. Time dilation affects internal processes within the moving frame. Remember, time of perception is historical, after the event has occurred, and therefore can’t influence its happening.
Events un-happening, occur in your simulation, not the real world.
End of story.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/08/2017 00:00:00
Mode 2 and mode 3 are the same, same locations and times for each event.

Modes 2 and 3 are different, as you should see if you change frame. Mode 3 retains the same control frame of reference whereas mode 2 changes it whenever you change the displayed frame. The reason for the difference is that mode 3 doesn't unhappen events when you change the displayed frame.

Quote
In mode 1, the rockets are moving in time to agree with their dilated readings. That's unreal, and why they arrive before the planet. Your misinterpretation of time dilation affecting the motion of the object, is incorrect, which is the cause of 'event meshing failures'. Time dilation affects internal processes within the moving frame. Remember, time of perception is historical, after the event has occurred, and therefore can’t influence its happening.

Mode 1 is one of the SR models and I have represented it correctly. Don't accuse me of misinterpreting things on the basis that I'm showing you a fair version of someone else's model. If you don't like their model, you can simply label that model as wrong, which is fine by me. Event-meshing failures are specific to model 1 and they are not of my making.

Quote
Events un-happening, occur in your simulation, not the real world.
End of story.

They happen in the model 2 SR simulation, and as you rightly say, they don't in the real world. Which means you're effectively agreeing that SR doesn't work.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/08/2017 00:12:43
My understanding of a Gods view is of the present which is impossible for mere mortals. We can only view relativity.

We can make reference-frame cameras and take God view's as photographs. By alternating the timing of each pixel taking its part of the picture, we can create such photos for any frame of reference. The only limitation is that each pixel must be directly adjacent to the thing it is photographing, so a reference frame camera takes pictures like making a contact print where there is no lens and no delay in the light going from the part of the object being photographed by a pixel and the pixel receiving that light.

Quote
Simultaneity of Relativity? Rubbish?

The rubbish is the delays that you're failing to calculate around, and you're mistaking those delays for relativity. They have nothing to do with relativity other than being a complication on the top which you need to correct for.

Quote
If you believe the cause of motion of the electron is irrelevant than so is your understanding.

It is utterly unimportant to relativity. Relativity is about how things move relative to each other and it doesn't matter what makes them move.

Quote
Its the basis for all frames measuring the same speed of light in a vacuum. Our view is distorted fractally in every frame. Expand your understanding you are fairly bright.

Our distorted view is irrelevant - we should be working with the corrected views, corrected in different ways for analysis using different frames.

Quote
And no view is valid because of simultaneity of relativity.

One frame's God view gives the true picture of the underlying reality.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 09/08/2017 02:52:34
You can take a picture of the night sky with all the galaxies but they are not where we view them. So in what way is the  picture of our universe a valid representation of positions?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: xersanozgen on 09/08/2017 17:35:35
You can take a picture of the night sky with all the galaxies but they are not where we view them. So in what way is the  picture of our universe a valid representation of positions?

We can see an illusion. Each one of the sky objects is not at simultaneous position and their current age. The reason of this illusion is just the finite/limited value of light's velocity. The reason is not their different value of their time tempos because of their relative speeds.

The effective reason of the illusion picture is transparent/indisputable: the value of light's velocity is not infinite.

All analyses on this topic must be reconsidered by the method that co-reference frame will be the most external frame (space/LCS) and  the speeds of other actors (source/observer etc.) must be adapted/considered according to this co-reference frame.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/08/2017 23:19:49
You can take a picture of the night sky with all the galaxies but they are not where we view them. So in what way is the  picture of our universe a valid representation of positions?

That isn't the kind of picture I was talking about taking. A reference-frame camera would need to be spread across the entire thing being photographed as each pixel records what is right next to it. In principle you could spread such a camera through the entire universe, but would be more practical just to use one locally. The purpose of the idea though is to show that the conversions are fully valid - if you correct for time delays, you necessarily end up with the same view as would be taken by a reference-frame camera, and different corrections based on different frames would produce different images matching up to the ones taken by a reference-frame camera set to take pictures for the same frame of reference, this being done simply by changing the clock synchronisation for all the pixels. Everything converts to God-view images which show where everything is/was/will-be at a specific moment in time for a specific frame of reference. Such images are the same as the ones used in Spacetime diagrams in that they remove the communication delays.

If you want a God-view picture of the visible universe to show it as it is now by a frame of reference in which we are more or less stationary, that picture would show most of galaxies much further away than where we see them because it would correct for the communication delays and project them to where they must be now instead of putting them where they used to be millions or billions of years ago. The accuracy of such a picture would depend on us knowing how far away each galaxy was when it was where we currently see it, its direction and speed of travel (when it was where we currently see it), and the calculation of the expansion of space in between it and us. There could be a lot of error in all of that. All the same principles apply in a small space too though, such as within a lab - an infinite number of frames of reference apply there and so do communication delays. It should be possible to build a reference-frame camera in a lab to take God-view photos of the action in a 2D plane, though for it to do the job properly, it would need to be able to make nanosecond-long (or should that be short) exposures.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 10/08/2017 12:36:53
I do not subscribe to the BB. There are BH way to large for the mere 13.6 billion light years to have been produced. The mechanics of relativity allow both GR and SR red shifts while main stream only uses SR in determining distance. They even chose the Cepheid's to match our galaxy's Cepheid's brightness. That nullifies the variation in expansion. GR red shift is a part of the galaxies lensing and not an expansion of SR. From our position in our galaxy 75% out from the center of course we would view all galaxies as red shifted but by GR and not necessarily SR. 75% of the light from a galaxy is in the most dilated center.

Our sun would compress down to 1.6 miles as a BH and there are some BH;s with a billion solar masses. 13.6 billion light years for the universe to exist becomes a joke. Our suns aging process will take 10 billion light years to complete. Follow the math.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/08/2017 22:19:13
Well, it's lucky we don't need anything distant to explore relativity - it can all be done locally.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 12/08/2017 12:54:07
David,

   Lets explore the clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level and the MMX results. North and south would be the same distance traveled for light because energy rotates with the Earth. The proof is the rotation with the Earth's path and against the Earth's path around the sun does not affect tick rate. Now we determine East and West. The distance because light is independent of the source changes in the East and West directions by the rotation of the Earth. So the extra distance west to east is exactly auto corrected for east to west. Planets are a specific case of c+v and c-v. The speed of light being constant but the source moving away and moving towards the return point. The energy rotating with the Earth creates a fixed point in space for light to return. This would work for any angle you rotate the MMX experiment. All because clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on the earth locally. You cannot find a fixed point in space. Results would be different.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 13/08/2017 00:58:05
Lets explore the clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level and the MMX results. North and south would be the same distance traveled for light because energy rotates with the Earth. The proof is the rotation with the Earth's path and against the Earth's path around the sun does not affect tick rate.

While all clocks at sea level tick at the same rate in the frame of reference in which the centre of the Earth is stationary (which it cannot always be), they will vary for all other frames, so the rotation does affect tick rate.

Quote
Now we determine East and West. The distance because light is independent of the source changes in the East and West directions by the rotation of the Earth. So the extra distance west to east is exactly auto corrected for east to west.

Auto corrected how? It isn't. Light takes longer to complete the trip one way than the other, so we know that on average, light moves faster through that arm of the MMX in one direction than the other, and that would lengthen the total time taken for it to complete the round trip if that arm didn't contract in length.

Quote
Planets are a specific case of c+v and c-v. The speed of light being constant but the source moving away and moving towards the return point. The energy rotating with the Earth creates a fixed point in space for light to return. This would work for any angle you rotate the MMX experiment. All because clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on the earth locally. You cannot find a fixed point in space. Results would be different.

The only difference with doing the experiment on the Earth as opposed to in space is that gravity slows light down for both arms, but it slows them both equally and therefore doesn't affect the result.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 13/08/2017 21:05:14
While all clocks at sea level tick at the same rate in the frame of reference in which the centre of the Earth is stationary (which it cannot always be), they will vary for all other frames, so the rotation does affect tick rate

Your confusing GR with SR. The SR affect is clocks ticking at the same rate along with the GR rotating the energy stationary to your position.

Auto corrected how? It isn't. Light takes longer to complete the trip one way than the other, so we know that on average, light moves faster through that arm of the MMX in one direction than the other, and that would lengthen the total time taken for it to complete the round trip if that arm didn't contract in length.

Its not faster because energy is stationary with the position on the Earth. Its like the Earth is stationary in the North South direction. The proof is the rotation around the sun with the Earth's direction and against the Earth's direction does not affect the tick rate. You have not fully comprehended the affects this creates with light. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame. Light does not go faster or slower only the distances are changed. All directions are stationary to the point of origin. The MMX had to be a null result. The direction East and west auto correct for distance back to origin.


The only difference with doing the experiment on the Earth as opposed to in space is that gravity slows light down for both arms, but it slows them both equally and therefore doesn't affect the result.

You do not understand the energy issue rotating with the planet.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/08/2017 01:09:12
Your confusing GR with SR. The SR affect is clocks ticking at the same rate along with the GR rotating the energy stationary to your position.

I'm not confusing anything - you're failing to factor in the difference between an Earth rotating round a stationary centre and rotating round a moving centre - the former case will have all clocks at sea level ticking in sync while the latter case cannot do so (except on average over multiples of 23 hours 56 minutes).

Quote
Its not faster because energy is stationary with the position on the Earth.

Voodoo. Light completes a trip round the Earth faster westwards than eastwards, so there is no weird effect equalising it to make an uncontracted MMX arm produce a null result.

Quote
All directions are stationary to the point of origin.

That would lead to light overtaking light if the sources move at different speeds relative to each other.

Quote
You do not understand the energy issue rotating with the planet.

I understand that your disproven nonsense doesn't work.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 14/08/2017 13:41:59
I'm not confusing anything - you're failing to factor in the difference between an Earth rotating round a stationary centre and rotating round a moving centre - the former case will have all clocks at sea level ticking in sync while the latter case cannot do so (except on average over multiples of 23 hours 56 minutes).

The spectrum Energy moves with mass. North and south directions move light equally in those directions. The distances are the same in either direction. East and West the distances change because you have light chasing and closing on an object. That is not contraction of a physical object!

 
Voodoo. Light completes a trip round the Earth faster westwards than eastwards, so there is no weird effect equalising it to make an uncontracted MMX arm produce a null result.

Of course!!! But you are not doing that in the MMX. You are returning the light counteracting the difference for the Null result. It auto corrects the difference in any angle. There is no physical contraction. The spectrum energy moves with the Earth.

 
I understand that your disproven nonsense doesn't work.

The Null result of the MMX begs to differ.


That would lead to light overtaking light if the sources move at different speeds relative to each other.

The objects are moving the same speed. If an object contracted the distance light traveled to the mirrors would affect the MMX null result mathematically. There is no different speeds that would cause the non null results.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/08/2017 01:08:01
The spectrum Energy moves with mass. North and south directions move light equally in those directions. The distances are the same in either direction. East and West the distances change because you have light chasing and closing on an object. That is not contraction of a physical object!

Light moves more quickly (on average) westwards relative to the material of the surface of the Earth that it is passing than it does eastwards. We know that because it takes it longer to complete a circuit eastwards. That means there is no magical equalisation of speed in the two directions relative to the arm of the MMX alligned east-west, and that means it can only produce a null result if that arm contracts.
 
Quote
Of course!!! But you are not doing that in the MMX.

Really? How does that work? the arm of the MMX can be directly next to a fibre optic cable going right round the world in which we see the signal taking longer to complete a circuit one way than the other and you say that the light in the MMX isn't bound by the same speeds? You have light in the MMX overtaking light in the cable in one direction and being overtaken by it in the opposite direction, and that just won't work.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 15/08/2017 12:33:41
Light moves more quickly (on average) westwards relative to the material of the surface of the Earth that it is passing than it does eastwards. We know that because it takes it longer to complete a circuit eastwards. That means there is no magical equalisation of speed in the two directions relative to the arm of the MMX alligned east-west, and that means it can only produce a null result if that arm contracts.

There is a consequence to clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level you definitely do not understand. The energy level at sea level is the same all over the planet. Your belief is the Earth is a frame where the distance for light is the same for a fixed position of objects. The physical object does not contract to make the Null result. Lets circle the Earth at the equator eight times with fiber optic cable. Your idea suggests the optic wire shrinks in the westward direction. Ok lets explore that idea we have the shrunken optic cable. We have a second optic cable attached right next to it. A double optic cable if you will. So if one shrinks so does the other. We send light in opposite directions. There is still a difference in timing with the two opposite directions. Wrap it 10000 times and the difference accumulates. That is not a Null result and the physical object does not contract more and more with each cycle.

The energy used in eastern direction is less available then in the western direction because of the rotation direction. Either the speed of light changes or the relative speed of light changes. Since light is constant the relative speed changes consistent with the postulate light is independent of the source.


Really? How does that work? the arm of the MMX can be directly next to a fibre optic cable going right round the world in which we see the signal taking longer to complete a circuit one way than the other and you say that the light in the MMX isn't bound by the same speeds? You have light in the MMX overtaking light in the cable in one direction and being overtaken by it in the opposite direction, and that just won't work.

Yes really. The MMX was two way where one direction exactly adjusts for the opposite direction by distance traveled extra in the eastward direction longer and the distance traveled in the westward direction shorter. Its as simple as that and you introduce magical contraction of a physical object.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 16/08/2017 00:23:58
There is a consequence to clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level you definitely do not understand. The energy level at sea level is the same all over the planet. Your belief is the Earth is a frame where the distance for light is the same for a fixed position of objects. The physical object does not contract to make the Null result. Lets circle the Earth at the equator eight times with fiber optic cable. Your idea suggests the optic wire shrinks in the westward direction. Ok lets explore that idea we have the shrunken optic cable. We have a second optic cable attached right next to it. A double optic cable if you will. So if one shrinks so does the other. We send light in opposite directions. There is still a difference in timing with the two opposite directions. Wrap it 10000 times and the difference accumulates. That is not a Null result and the physical object does not contract more and more with each cycle.

If you lay a cable round the Earth, it will go down in ready-contracted form wherever the ground is likewise contracted (and the ground is - you can fit a tiny amount more of it in than pi suggests due to the Earth's rotation). There is no shrinking of any cable for a westward direction that doesn't also apply eastward, just as the arm of the MMX contracts for both directions of travel of the light moving along it. Your understanding of all this is such a mess that I doubt you'll ever manage to untangle it all.

Yes really. The MMX was two way where one direction exactly adjusts for the opposite direction by distance traveled extra in the eastward direction longer and the distance traveled in the westward direction shorter. Its as simple as that and you introduce magical contraction of a physical object.

We've been through all that many times in this thread - if it's longer one way and shorter the other, the extra length one way isn't cancelled out exactly by the shorter length the other way. Any difference in the time taken for light to do one leg of the trip vs. the other leads to a longer total time than if the two legs are equal.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 16/08/2017 13:29:57
If you lay a cable round the Earth, it will go down in ready-contracted form wherever the ground is likewise contracted (and the ground is - you can fit a tiny amount more of it in than pi suggests due to the Earth's rotation). There is no shrinking of any cable for a westward direction that doesn't also apply eastward, just as the arm of the MMX contracts for both directions of travel of the light moving along it. Your understanding of all this is such a mess that I doubt you'll ever manage to untangle it all.

We can change the phase in one cable going around the equator say ten times. We can send one phase to the east and one phase to the west simultaneously. I think we agree the westward direction completes a lap before the eastward direction in the same cable. So each lap the difference increases. Not because the physical cable keeps contracting more each time because the phases are in the same cable. So the difference is in the travel distances themselves. In one direction you are chasing the origin and the other direction you are closing the gap. The speed of light being the same in both directions. So its a distance issue for light and not a physical contraction of the cable.

Normally in space the speed of light forward is longer between mirrors with the direction of speed than side ways I will concede that mathematically because it does not come back to origin in open space. I understand this point mathematically. But the Earth does have an origin that light returns in the MMX. All clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. Light is confounded with the electron in every frame. So we are dealing with an energy level back and forth to origin unlike being in space. Its like the Earth is stationary in space for the two way direction of light.


We've been through all that many times in this thread - if it's longer one way and shorter the other, the extra length one way isn't cancelled out exactly by the shorter length the other way. Any difference in the time taken for light to do one leg of the trip vs. the other leads to a longer total time than if the two legs are equal.

Yes in space away from mass where tick rate has little to do with GR.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 16/08/2017 20:29:31
We can change the phase in one cable going around the equator say ten times. We can send one phase to the east and one phase to the west simultaneously. I think we agree the westward direction completes a lap before the eastward direction in the same cable. So each lap the difference increases. Not because the physical cable keeps contracting more each time because the phases are in the same cable. So the difference is in the travel distances themselves. In one direction you are chasing the origin and the other direction you are closing the gap. The speed of light being the same in both directions. So its a distance issue for light and not a physical contraction of the cable.

The cable is still contracted on average by a tiny amount, but it's of little relevance there. When you send your light on multiple circuits of the Earth, you magnify the difference in timing, but so what? How is that relevant to the price of fish? It doesn't matter how many circuits are involved, the only important point is that the light completes the trip faster one way than the other, and that means on average over 23 hours and 56 minutes the same speed difference will apply in opposite directions through the MMX which can have one arm running directly alongside this loop of fibre-optic cable going right round the Earth (while light has to travel at the same speeds in the same direction at the same time in both the MMX arm and this cable). And when you have a speed difference, the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

Quote
Normally in space the speed of light forward is longer between mirrors with the direction of speed than side ways I will concede that mathematically because it does not come back to origin in open space. I understand this point mathematically. But the Earth does have an origin that light returns in the MMX. All clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. Light is confounded with the electron in every frame. So we are dealing with an energy level back and forth to origin unlike being in space. Its like the Earth is stationary in space for the two way direction of light.

I've just shown you (for the n'th time) that the speed of light through the MMX arm aligned with the cable going round the Earth must on average be faster in one direction than the other, and for the "ticks" of that arm to remain in sync with the "ticks" of the perpendicular arm, it has to contract. More importantly though, the main impact on the relative speed of light to the apparatus in opposite directions comes from the Earth's movement round the sun rather than from its rotation, and no amount of voodoo can overcome that either by imagining that the rules out in space don't also apply down on the Earth - anything that adjusts to equalise the speeds would lead to measurable distortions, absolutely trashing GPS system measurements.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 17/08/2017 15:26:49
the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

The timing does increase in the east to west direction because you are slowing down. The electrons travel through less space per cycle. Light and the electron are always confounded. Light travels through less space also. This is why they are confounded. It is the cycle time of the electron that controls timing while c is the available time. The electron at c would have no cycle timing.



I've just shown you (for the n'th time) that the speed of light through the MMX arm aligned with the cable going round the Earth must on average be faster in one direction than the other

No the light is constant. The distance traveled is not if you are discussing relativity.

and for the "ticks" of that arm to remain in sync with the "ticks" of the perpendicular arm, it has to contract

No the ticks by distance is more and less by direction to complete the rotation. If we are discussing relativity.

More importantly though, the main impact on the relative speed of light to the apparatus in opposite directions comes from the Earth's movement round the sun rather than from its rotation

Then you do not understand clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level.

and no amount of voodoo can overcome that either by imagining that the rules out in space don't also apply down on the Earth

Do you consider gravity voodoo?
anything that adjusts to equalise the speeds would lead to measurable distortions, absolutely trashing GPS system measurements.

SOL is constant. Measurable distortions create the need for GPS systems.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 18/08/2017 00:21:05
the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

The timing does increase in the east to west direction because you are slowing down.

The timing reduces for that direction.

Quote
The electrons travel through less space per cycle.

They travel through more space per cycle.

Quote
Light travels through less space also.

When?

Quote
This is why they are confounded. It is the cycle time of the electron that controls timing while c is the available time. The electron at c would have no cycle timing.

We're talking about light moving along - not electrons.

Quote
No the light is constant. The distance traveled is not if you are discussing relativity.

The light is constant through space (ignoring a slight slowing in all directions in a gravitational field). The distance it travels in the MMX arm does not magically contract to a shorter length than the length of the MMX arm. The arm has to contract for the distance to contract.

Quote
and for the "ticks" of that arm to remain in sync with the "ticks" of the perpendicular arm, it has to contract

No the ticks by distance is more and less by direction to complete the rotation. If we are discussing relativity.

If we're discussing reality and relativity (as opposed to than voodoo and pseudo-relativity), an uncontracted arm of the MMX would lead to longer ticks than on the perpendicular arm.

Quote
More importantly though, the main impact on the relative speed of light to the apparatus in opposite directions comes from the Earth's movement round the sun rather than from its rotation

Then you do not understand clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level.

I understand it, and unlike you I understand that it's irrelevant.

Quote
Do you consider gravity voodoo?

Of course not, but your misuse of it most certainly is.

Quote
SOL is constant.

...apart from slowing in all directions in a gravitational field.

Quote
Measurable distortions create the need for GPS systems.

Nonsense. You're dragging imaginary distortions into it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 18/08/2017 13:24:43
The timing reduces for that direction.

The tick rate increases east to west because of deceleration vs. acceleration reducing the tick rate west to east. If you are using timing as tick rate.


They travel through more space per cycle.

One of us is viewing this backwards. At rest vs. velocity of the electron the at rest atom of hydrogen's electron travels through less space per cycle. This increases the tick rate at rest vs. the slower tick rate with speed. Like the body counts every calorie the electron counts all distance traveled through space.

the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

The timing does increase in the east to west direction because you are slowing down.

The timing reduces for that direction.

Quote
The electrons travel through less space per cycle.

They travel through more space per cycle.


When?

When deceleration happens tick rate increases. You are decelerating east to west. Your intercept point has less distance not because anything physical contracts but because light is independent of the source being intercepted.

t does not matter how fast you are co-moving and creating light in the same direction light can only move at c. But an object on an intercept course will shorten the distance without the need for physical contraction. Light being independent of the source. It remains c but you have to add the speed of the intercepting object.

So east to west your tick rate increases and the distance measured by light is shorter. The shorter distance is matched by the increased tick rate to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in both directions.

Your confused because your not recognizing relativity properly. No wonder you are confused.



We're talking about light moving along - not electrons.

They are confounded in every frame. The use of the term confounded means they both adjust ( Light distance and tick rate) to measure the SOL the same in every frame. Well now I suspect that might be more relevant on a planet than in space because the tick rate is the same at sea level rotating with and against Earth rotation around the sun. Local measurement in gravity may be different than space lacking gravity. A planet Might create a situation with gravity that the north and south directions of light are not affected by rotation and travel in a straight line in those directions. So we have a point of origin that speed in space does not. So the mathematics for physical contraction might not be valid for a planet. If that is the case only the voyagers moved out of the solar systems gravity rotation and dilation. Would light clocks tick the same by orientation relative to mechanical clocks? Curios.



The light is constant through space (ignoring a slight slowing in all directions in a gravitational field). The distance it travels in the MMX arm does not magically contract to a shorter length than the length of the MMX arm. The arm has to contract for the distance to contract.

You might be confusing light being constant with distance being constant. Space dilates in GR and distance for light increases in SR with equivalence of speed and gravity for tick rate. The arm does not have to contract if the distance between two objects is decreasing.

If we're discussing reality and relativity (as opposed to than voodoo and pseudo-relativity), an uncontracted arm of the MMX would lead to longer ticks than on the perpendicular arm.

If we have an origin to get back to the longer distance is exactly offset by the shorter distance east and west. Clocks tick at the same rate suggests an origin and negates the voodoo physical contraction. Two directions in the same optical cable (with different phases still would have a difference in distance traveled and not return synchronous in the east west direction but would in the north south directions.

I understand it, and unlike you I understand that it's irrelevant.

Considering clocks tick at the same rate at sea level with and against Earth's orbit irrelevant? In pure relativity clocks should tick faster retro orbit. And you consider that irrelevant?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/08/2017 00:40:39
The tick rate increases east to west because of deceleration vs. acceleration reducing the tick rate west to east. If you are using timing as tick rate.

Light doesn't accelerate or decelerate - it goes at a constant speed.

Quote
One of us is viewing this backwards.

It depends on what's actually being said - it's too far a chase back up through earlier posts to find out what's the original point was.

Quote
At rest vs. velocity of the electron the at rest atom of hydrogen's electron travels through less space per cycle. This increases the tick rate at rest vs. the slower tick rate with speed. Like the body counts every calorie the electron counts all distance traveled through space.

That sounds reasonable now that it's clear that you're talking about an electron cycling around something rather than just an electron floating about on its own.

Quote
When deceleration happens tick rate increases. You are decelerating east to west. Your intercept point has less distance not because anything physical contracts but because light is independent of the source being intercepted.

There's no deceleration. The light simply has less distance to travel through space to "complete" the westward circuit because it doesn't actually complete a circuit, whereas light doing the circuit eastward has to do more than a circuit.

Quote
It does not matter how fast you are co-moving and creating light in the same direction light can only move at c. But an object on an intercept course will shorten the distance without the need for physical contraction. Light being independent of the source. It remains c but you have to add the speed of the intercepting object.

An object on an intercept course does not shorten the distance - from the frame of reference in which it is at rest, it imagines that the distance has shortened, but from the frame of reference it's moving through, it shortens nothing other than itself.

Quote
So east to west your tick rate increases and the distance measured by light is shorter. The shorter distance is matched by the increased tick rate to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in both directions.

Your confused because your not recognizing relativity properly. No wonder you are confused.

The confusion is all yours, but the only way to show you that would be to write a program to demonstrate it. Given how long this conversation has gone on, it might be quickest just to do that rather than having every proven point rejected by you out of hand on the basis or irrelevant factors, misunderstood theory and miscellaneous voodoo.

Quote
They are confounded in every frame. The use of the term confounded means they both adjust ( Light distance and tick rate) to measure the SOL the same in every frame.

That doesn't matter - the numbers only add up correctly with length contraction, so if you're ruling it out, you're going against mathematics.

Quote
Well now I suspect that might be more relevant on a planet than in space because the tick rate is the same at sea level rotating with and against Earth rotation around the sun.

No it isn't - the tick rate can vary without you being able to measure that change. You're basing that on an assumption that the sun is stationary, and that's seriously unlikely to be correct.

Quote
Local measurement in gravity may be different than space lacking gravity. A planet Might create a situation with gravity that the north and south directions of light are not affected by rotation and travel in a straight line in those directions.

It doesn't.

Quote
So we have a point of origin that speed in space does not. So the mathematics for physical contraction might not be valid for a planet. If that is the case only the voyagers moved out of the solar systems gravity rotation and dilation. Would light clocks tick the same by orientation relative to mechanical clocks? Curios.

So long as there's length contraction, all accurate co-moving clocks will tick in sync regardless of orientation (unless a gravitational field messes with that - I don't know if a light clock arranged vertically is guaranteed to stay in sync with one arranged vertically, but I suspect it still would).

Quote
You might be confusing light being constant with distance being constant. Space dilates in GR and distance for light increases in SR with equivalence of speed and gravity for tick rate. The arm does not have to contract if the distance between two objects is decreasing.

Within a frame of reference, c is constant and so is distance. The MMX is moving through the frame being used for the analysis and it has to contract for that frame (and if that frame is the absolute one, the contraction must be absolutely real). What you're trying to do is have an object's movement contract space not merely for itself, but for another frame, and that shows that you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity which is preventing you from making further progress.

Quote
If we have an origin to get back to the longer distance is exactly offset by the shorter distance east and west.

No it isn't - the distance is always longer than that because you aren't allowed to change the speed of the apparatus between the two legs of the trip for the light.

Quote
Clocks tick at the same rate suggests an origin and negates the voodoo physical contraction.

It's voodoo without the contraction - you cannot have light clocks tick in sync on different alignments without it.

Quote
Considering clocks tick at the same rate at sea level with and against Earth's orbit irrelevant?

It's plain incorrect - you're making an incorrect extrapolation from the idea that they all tick at the same rate for the frame of reference in which the Earth is stationary. It doesn't apply to any other frames.

Quote
In pure relativity clocks should tick faster retro orbit.

They should and doubtless do.

Quote
And you consider that irrelevant?

It is irrelevant because you're misapplying it, not understanding that it is only the case if the Earth is not moving along through space at all but is merely rotating.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 19/08/2017 15:51:34
Quote from: GoC on Yesterday at 13:24:43The tick rate increases east to west because of deceleration vs. acceleration reducing the tick rate west to east. If you are using timing as tick rate.Light doesn't accelerate or decelerate - it goes at a constant speed.

Yes light is constant but kinetic energy used reduces the tick rate of a clock. It has been agreed that light and mechanical clocks tick at the same rate. A plane moving east to west proved the tick rate increases over west to east. This is an observed fact. A plane decelerates from the rotation of the earth in the east to west direction. The change in tick rate proves light is constant. There is a depth of understanding you are missing. Relativity is a machine and you are missing some parts in your understanding. Your first instinct is to deny there is anything missing in your understanding. This is a block to your depth. Reason deeper. Take in more facts to your opinion.

That sounds reasonable now that it's clear that you're talking about an electron cycling around something rather than just an electron floating about on its own.

Sorry I recognized electrons never float around on their own along time ago. The representative wave of an electron on the spectrum does. The dual slit experiment is a wave only. When they look at it the wave becomes polarized. No real challenge to understanding. The standard model creates its own challenge to understanding.

 
There's no deceleration. The light simply has less distance to travel through space to "complete" the westward circuit because it doesn't actually complete a circuit, whereas light doing the circuit eastward has to do more than a circuit

The airplane atomic clocks prove that to be incorrect. The rotation of the earth (speed) decelerates in the east to west direction while the speed of light remains constant. This is why a fiber cable around the equator sending light in both directions would be different times for their return. The speed of light is the same for both directions but the distance changes for both directions. Simultaneity of relativity is different. You understand something is wrong and of course you blame it on relativity. It is actually your view of relativity that needs a deeper understanding. A good start from your current position might be view it in energy rather than speed. You have a battery in space that mass connects to allow motion. That battery is c zero point energy. The battery is constant, Electrons all move at the same rate in a frame. Electrons always move at c. Electrons move in a helix through space. Increased Speed causes the electron to travel through more space per cycle reducing tick rate. The speed is the reduced energy available we describe as kinetic.Kinetic energy is a portion of the energy used of the total. East to west speed on the earth reduces the kinetic energy used and the tick rate of your clocks increase. There is no absolute frame because you can never measure your kinetic energy being used accurately.

An object on an intercept course does not shorten the distance - from the frame of reference in which it is at rest, it imagines that the distance has shortened, but from the frame of reference it's moving through, it shortens nothing other than itself

Now there is the voodoo. Light has no power to shorten a physical object and neither does mathematics. You never know your kinetic energy used relative to c. Measuring the speed of light in a vacuum in every frame as the same just proves this point. The energy available in a frame is what is being measured and its always c. Kinetic energy used cannot be measured by c. It can only be measured relative to another physical object. There is no absolute frame able to be measured. there may be a space where energy density is the greatest but measuring that point destroys the density of energy. And you would still only measure c.

The confusion is all yours, but the only way to show you that would be to write a program to demonstrate it. Given how long this conversation has gone on, it might be quickest just to do that rather than having every proven point rejected by you out of hand on the basis or irrelevant factors, misunderstood theory and miscellaneous voodoo.

Measurements using light to measure light is meaningless. That is the voodoo. You cannot measure a system if what you are measuring is part of the system.

That doesn't matter - the numbers only add up correctly with length contraction, so if you're ruling it out, you're going against mathematics.

No you are using mathematics without all of the information corrected for your model. The tick rate and distance for light both change on the Earth. They are confounded. Your model does not take that into account. No matter what clock you use your still measuring light with light in your clocks that is the meaning of confounded between the electron and photon. Your clock is not moving in your frame but the light is being measured by the clock. Your measurement of light in the clock is at a different relative speed and distance to the light. But you are measuring light with light and believing your measurements have precision which is correct but not accurate.

 
No it isn't - the tick rate can vary without you being able to measure that change. You're basing that on an assumption that the sun is stationary, and that's seriously unlikely to be correct.

This is why earlier I said available energy verses kinetic energy used. The total energy density for tick rate is dictated by the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy and universe. But the energy on the Earth is dictated more by gravity than by rotation as proven by clocks ticking at the same rate with and against the earths orbit. This creates a stationary position for light to return to in space on the Earth. So East and West changes its energy density for tick rate of a clock in motion relative to the Earth (proven by atomic clocks on airplanes). There is also a distance change for light because light is independent of the source. No physical contraction. You cannot follow the math if your model is incorrect and claim accuracy.

So long as there's length contraction, all accurate co-moving clocks will tick in sync regardless of orientation (unless a gravitational field messes with that - I don't know if a light clock arranged vertically is guaranteed to stay in sync with one arranged vertically, but I suspect it still would).

By observation they do stay in synchronization but that may be because of gravity creating a North South position of a fixed frame for light to return. The medium for light rotating with the Earth which causes gravity to go straight down also. The medium for light and gravity would be the same but different aspects of the spectrum. Increased Dilation of the spectrum energy would be the gravity and bend the light. Relativity is more than just following math you also have to follow the correct model. Math is a tool and a very good tool but it cannot prove a theory. it can only disprove a theory. Your contraction of mass and my decrease in distance because of independent of the source both follow math. I do not believe light can contract mass.

Within a frame of reference, c is constant and so is distance.

This is where your understanding of relativities independent of the source is a failure to understand distances correctly. Clocks ticking at the same rate on a planet creates a fixed position in latitude for light to return. This may be different in space for clocks orientation than on Earth when you follow the model. That is more likely than light forcing mass to contract.

The MMX is moving through the frame being used for the analysis and it has to contract for that frame (and if that frame is the absolute one, the contraction must be absolutely real).

There is no absolute frame that can be measured. That does not mean c is not the absolute frame. We just cannot measure it. We do our best to measure with it but it does not contract a physical object.

What you're trying to do is have an object's movement contract space not merely for itself, but for another frame, and that shows that you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity which is preventing you from making further progress.

That may be true of one or both of us. I do not believe SR can contract space although I believe GR can dilate space energy spectrum. SR light is independent of the source. That is all I am following.

No it isn't - the distance is always longer than that because you aren't allowed to change the speed of the apparatus between the two legs of the trip for the light

You are not changing the speed of light you are changing the distance light travels because light is independent of the source. You are confusing a frame's fixed physical distance with the distance light has to travel between in each direction. They are different because light is independent of the source and constant. That does not mean it is constant relative to the physical frame. The relative speed of light is different by direction.

"In pure relativity clocks should tick faster retro orbit" My statement

They should and doubtless do

But observation proves the orbit in retro grade tick at the same rate as with the orbit. You are just ignoring facts to maintain your belief system.

It is irrelevant because you're misapplying it, not understanding that it is only the case if the Earth is not moving along through space at all but is merely rotating

If clocks tick at the same rate at sea level all over the planet earth than the earth's affect on light is as if it is stationary and only rotating. Clocks and the photon are confounded so light returns to a stationary position in the MMX. The Null result.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 19/08/2017 17:58:27
We begin with a coin.
Ann's line of sight is perpendicular to the face of the coin, she sees a circle.
Ben's line of sight is 45 deg to the face of the coin, he sees an ellipse.
Louie questions, how can the coin be circular and elliptical at the same time?
Vinnie answers, it can't, but the images can, since Ann and Ben are in different locations. The coin has 2 different locations, 1 relative to each observer. The locations are not properties of the coin, but perceptions of the observers.
Motion is a change of position for an interval of time. Therefore each observer has a unique sequence of images as their perception of a moving object. The motion is not a property of the object, but a changing relation of positions between object and observer.
Each observer experiences a private/local/unique perception of events in their world. Their descriptions will be different. The idea of being contradictory only occurs if the perceptions are erroneously applied to the moving object.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/08/2017 21:22:03
There is a depth of understanding you are missing. Relativity is a machine and you are missing some parts in your understanding. Your first instinct is to deny there is anything missing in your understanding. This is a block to your depth. Reason deeper. Take in more facts to your opinion.

If I don't mention irrelevant things which we both agree on, that doesn't represent a lack of understanding on my part, but a better grasp of which things are relevant to the issue in question because I don't bring in extraneous junk in the way you have to as diversions away from your mistakes.

Quote
Sorry I recognized electrons never float around on their own along time ago.

They can do, so every time in the past when you've talked about confounded electrons, I though you were talking about electrons in isolation.

Quote
There's no deceleration. The light simply has less distance to travel through space to "complete" the westward circuit because it doesn't actually complete a circuit, whereas light doing the circuit eastward has to do more than a circuit

The airplane atomic clocks prove that to be incorrect.

No they don't. There is no deceleration for the light - I'm not sending aeroplanes round the cable.

Quote
Simultaneity of relativity is different. You understand something is wrong and of course you blame it on relativity. It is actually your view of relativity that needs a deeper understanding.

I don't blame anything on relativity - LET is the real relativity, and it works.

Quote
A good start from your current position might be view it in energy rather than speed. You have a battery in space that mass connects to allow motion. That battery is c zero point energy. The battery is constant, Electrons all move at the same rate in a frame. Electrons always move at c.

Electrons have mass and cannot reach c. In a battery, the electrons actually crawl round at such a slow speed that in a typical setup none of them complete the circuit back to the other end of the battery before it is flat.

Quote
Now there is the voodoo. Light has no power to shorten a physical object and neither does mathematics.

Who said light can shorten an object? I didn't. But maths insists that objects must contract as they move faster.

[Deletes more unfounded assertions - can't be bothered responding to them.]

Quote
Measurements using light to measure light is meaningless. That is the voodoo. You cannot measure a system if what you are measuring is part of the system.

You can do it, but you can't assume that your measurements are correct. Anything you measure as being contracted may actually be the thing that's uncontracted while the measurer is contracted. But, you can show that things are contracted by movement even if you can't definitively determine which ones are the contracted ones.

Quote
No you are using mathematics without all of the information corrected for your model.

It's all conditional as to what is contracted, but it is certain that moving things are contracted. Not knowing which ones are contracted does not overturn the fact that moving things are contracted - anyone who thinks it does has failed to apply the maths correctly.

Quote
Your model does not take that into account. No matter what clock you use your still measuring light with light in your clocks that is the meaning of confounded between the electron and photon.

I take everything relevant into account. I can show how it works for any frame of reference and produce definitive conditional statements as to what's going on, and every single frame tells the same story, that moving things must contract. It doesn't matter which frame represents reality because whichever one it is, it requires moving things to contract.

Quote
This is why earlier I said available energy verses kinetic energy used. The total energy density for tick rate is dictated by the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy and universe. But the energy on the Earth is dictated more by gravity than by rotation as proven by clocks ticking at the same rate with and against the earths orbit. This creates a stationary position for light to return to in space on the Earth.

No it doesn't - that is pure voodoo.

Quote
So East and West changes its energy density for tick rate of a clock in motion relative to the Earth (proven by atomic clocks on airplanes). There is also a distance change for light because light is independent of the source. No physical contraction. You cannot follow the math if your model is incorrect and claim accuracy.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. All these experiments prove that you don't have a stationary position for light to return to in space on the Earth. It's bonkers!

Quote
By observation they do stay in synchronization but that may be because of gravity creating a North South position of a fixed frame for light to return. The medium for light rotating with the Earth which causes gravity to go straight down also. The medium for light and gravity would be the same but different aspects of the spectrum. Increased Dilation of the spectrum energy would be the gravity and bend the light. Relativity is more than just following math you also have to follow the correct model. Math is a tool and a very good tool but it cannot prove a theory. it can only disprove a theory. Your contraction of mass and my decrease in distance because of independent of the source both follow math. I do not believe light can contract mass.

A mishmash of self-confusion. You're just trying to bury the issue in irrelevant junk. The issue is really simple - there is an MMX on the surface of the Earth with light moving along its arms and it would take longer to go along one arm and back than the other if that arm didn't contract. For it not to contract, light can only complete the trip on that arm in the same length of trip by going faster than light. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter a damn what gravity's doing to it as the slowing caused by that is the same on both arms. Imagine the Earth spinning with the MMS doing 0.866c and you'll see that the arm must contract to half its rest length for the two arms to "tick" in sync. All the other factors fade away into utter irrelevance when you do that. Slow the rotation and length contraction still applies, and continues to apply all the way down to the actual speed of the Earth's rotation. Your voodoo is just a pile of utter sh*** based on your rejection of real science and mathematics.

Quote
This is where your understanding of relativities independent of the source is a failure to understand distances correctly.

No, it's where your understanding is absent.

Quote
Clocks ticking at the same rate on a planet creates a fixed position in latitude for light to return. This may be different in space for clocks orientation than on Earth when you follow the model. That is more likely than light forcing mass to contract.

Voodoo. An array of clocks ticking in sync creates no such thing as a fixed position as all those clocks can be moving at any speed up to a fraction below c. You are a specialist in self-deception.

Quote
No it isn't - the distance is always longer than that because you aren't allowed to change the speed of the apparatus between the two legs of the trip for the light

You are not changing the speed of light you are changing the distance light travels because light is independent of the source.

Well done for getting that right and agreeing with me. The point is that the distance is not contracted and the light has to cover the distance in full, so it takes longer to do so, which means that the MMX arm must actually be contracted so that light doesn't take longer to make the trip because it doesn't have any further to travel through space than on the perpendicular arm.

Quote
You are confusing a frame's fixed physical distance with the distance light has to travel between in each direction. They are different because light is independent of the source and constant. That does not mean it is constant relative to the physical frame. The relative speed of light is different by direction.

I'm not confusing anything, darling - the confusion is all on your part. That's why my simulations work and you aren't able to program any of your own. The distance the light travels is that distance that the absolute frame requires it to travel - it cannot break that rule. The only complication is that we can't identify the absolute frame, but that doesn't matter as we can make conditional pronouncements on this for any frame at all, and every single one of them agrees that objects contract when they're moving.

Quote
But observation proves the orbit in retro grade tick at the same rate as with the orbit. You are just ignoring facts to maintain your belief system.

Which relevant facts am I ignoring? What I've been telling you throughout is consistent with all the facts, whereas what you are saying conflicts with them. This latest statement of yours means what? If you have two things orbiting at the same height in opposite directions round a stationary planet, they will orbit at the same speed through space and their clocks will tick at the same rate while the planet rotates underneath them. Does that add anything to the issue being discussed? No - nothing that hasn't already been adequately covered by the light in the fibre-optic cable. Do we need to drag planes in so that we can have them circle the Earth at the same speed relative to the Earth's surface below them? No. All you're doing is going off on diversions to hide the fact that you're plain wrong on the actual issue under discussion.

Quote
If clocks tick at the same rate at sea level all over the planet earth than the earth's affect on light is as if it is stationary and only rotating. Clocks and the photon are confounded so light returns to a stationary position in the MMX. The Null result.

Clocks don't tick at the same rate at sea level all over a rotating planet unless the planet actually is stationary in space. Most of the time, the Earth cannot be stationary in space, so the clocks are only ticking at the same rate on average over multiples of 23h 56m. But even if the Earth was stationary, the arm of the MMX aligned with the rotation would still have to contract.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/08/2017 21:50:04
We begin with a coin.
Ann's line of sight is perpendicular to the face of the coin, she sees a circle.
Ben's line of sight is 45 deg to the face of the coin, he sees an ellipse.
Louie questions, how can the coin be circular and elliptical at the same time?
Vinnie answers, it can't, but the images can, since Ann and Ben are in different locations. The coin has 2 different locations, 1 relative to each observer. The locations are not properties of the coin, but perceptions of the observers.

Regardless of what they see, both of them can work out that if the coin is at rest in space or is aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, it is circular, and if it's moving through space with a different orientation to perpendicular, it is elliptical. They therefore can't tell which shape it really is, but they can make definitive conditional statements about its shape, and if the conditions of one of those statements are true, the claim about the coin's shape in that statement must also be true (while any claims in other conditional statements which contradict that claim must be false).

Quote
Motion is a change of position for an interval of time. Therefore each observer has a unique sequence of images as their perception of a moving object. The motion is not a property of the object, but a changing relation of positions between object and observer.
Each observer experiences a private/local/unique perception of events in their world. Their descriptions will be different. The idea of being contradictory only occurs if the perceptions are erroneously applied to the moving object.

They are contradictory if they cannot both/all be true. With relativity, the claims generated by using different frames of analysis are contradictory and cannot all be true. It's important to think about what makes a real contradiction and what doesn't. Imagine that we're sitting opposite each other and looking at each other across a table (both the same way up). On the table there's a ball and an octopus (because these are typical objects found on tables). I might say, "the octopus is to the right of the ball" and you might say "the octopus is to the left of the ball", but there is no real contradiction there because we have both made ambiguous statements which don't spell things out with precision. I should have said "the octopus is to my right of the ball" and you should have said "the octopus is to my left of the ball". With relativity we can do the same kind of thing. If we move past each other at high speed, I can say "you're length contracted and I'm not", and you can make the same claim. The claims contradict each other and cannot both be correct. However, we could both say, "if I'm not moving, you're length contracted and I'm not", and now what we have said is not in conflict because they are both true conditional statements. The claims generated using any frame of reference as the base of the calculations as to what's doing what are all conditionally true, meaning that if that frame is stationary, all of those pronouncements are true (and that if it isn't stationary, many of those pronouncements will be false). All the conditional statements generated using different frames are equally conditionally-true - they are all equally potentially valid. But only one of them is right, and the claims of most frames once stripped of the conditionality clause are false.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/08/2017 15:31:50
But only one of them is right, and the claims of most frames once stripped of the conditionality clause are false.

Ok I can agree the physical view does not represent the physical object because there is no valid view.

I would like to know more about your belief in physical contraction. Explain it to me in terms of a fiber cable going around the Equator. Pick a point any point and allow light to travel around the globe in both directions. East to west will return before west to east in the same cable. You claim the cable is shorter in the east to west direction but it is the same cable.

But only one cable is right, and the claims of most contracted physical objects once stripped of the conditionality clause is false.

And using the same cable strips the claim of contracted physically as false. The cable cannot be contracted physically and not be contracted physically at the same time.

Unless of course the contracted physical cable and uncontracted physical cable are both valid.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/08/2017 00:44:47
I would like to know more about your belief in physical contraction. Explain it to me in terms of a fiber cable going around the Equator. Pick a point any point and allow light to travel around the globe in both directions. East to west will return before west to east in the same cable.

Correct - light going westwards doesn't quite have to complete a rotation to get back to the emitter/detector, whereas light going eastwards has to do a fraction more than a complete rotation, and that shows that the light is moving faster relative to the material of the cable that it's passing through in one direction than the other (on average).

Quote
You claim the cable is shorter in the east to west direction but it is the same cable.

No - the cable is the same length in both directions, and it's slightly contracted for both directions (on average) because of its movement through space. The contracted arm of the MMX is likewise contracted for both directions (whether the light's moving through it east or west).

Quote
But only one cable is right, and the claims of most contracted physical objects once stripped of the conditionality clause is false.

The analysis for each frame says that only objects at rest in that frame are uncontracted. There is no frame that will say that the cable is uncontracted because there is no frame in which it is at rest. (Note: I only count inertial frames as frames.) Most frames will assert that the cable is further contracted by movement of the planet through space, but even the frame with the planet at rest has a contracted cable, just as the edge of a rotating disc must contract (or become stressed).

Quote
And using the same cable strips the claim of contracted physically as false. The cable cannot be contracted physically and not be contracted physically at the same time.

There is no frame in which anything is contracted and uncontracted at the same time. The cable is contracted by its movement through space and not by the light moving through it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 21/08/2017 01:36:14
Ok now the same situation North and south. A fiber cable at sea level. Are we going with the not contracted?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/08/2017 00:58:29
Ok now the same situation North and south. A fiber cable at sea level. Are we going with the not contracted?

If the Earth is rotating round a stationary centre, the cable will be contracted across the way (rather than lengthways), and the contraction will be strongest at the equator and non-existent at the poles. Move the planet through space, and then the contraction is determined by working out which direction each bit of cable is moving through space and which direction it's moving through space in.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 22/08/2017 03:32:51
Move the planet through space, and then the contraction is determined by working out which direction each bit of cable is moving through space and which direction it's moving through space in

That would affect tick rate by direction and we established clocks tick at the same rate all over the globe independent of orbit around the sun. Clocks should tick slower with the orbit than against the orbit. This is not observed.

Contraction is a faith issue. You cannot measure the contraction because your measuring stick becomes contracted. I recognize that same issue in GR dilation but we can observe dilation.

So you must be saying the same thing I do when light in the East and West fiber cable circles the Earth one falls short and one falls long in the circumference. In the cable's contracted state light auto corrects to match the North to south rate.

And there is no way to prove the physical contraction model. No way to prove light slows down as a model. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 22/08/2017 16:35:33
They are contradictory if they cannot both/all be true.
The coin has specifications including material, form, and dimensions. The coin never has an elliptical shape, which would make it a reject.
If the observers were replaced with cameras, and each formed a photo of the coin, one image would show a round coin, the other would show an elliptical coin. The mfr of the coin can prove it was formed round producing the die used. The photos are formed from light reflecting from the coin to the lens. Science can explain the difference in the photos, in terms of camera positions and light propagation.
Do you know the difference between a thing and an image of the thing?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/08/2017 00:43:06
The coin has specifications including material, form, and dimensions. The coin never has an elliptical shape, which would make it a reject.

If there's length-contraction acting on it and it isn't aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, it is elliptical, just as the orbit of a planet round a fast moving star will be elliptical even if it appears circular to observers co-moving with that star.

Quote
If the observers were replaced with cameras, and each formed a photo of the coin, one image would show a round coin, the other would show an elliptical coin. The mfr of the coin can prove it was formed round producing the die used.

That is no proof - the coin may be moving at high speed, as so might the die, and if they have different length contraction acting on them they will be differently warped by this, but whenever you bring them together and fit the coin into the dye, it will fit perfectly because they will be co-moving.

Quote
The photos are formed from light reflecting from the coin to the lens. Science can explain the difference in the photos, in terms of camera positions and light propagation. Do you know the difference between a thing and an image of the thing?

Of course I know the difference - the real question is whether you understand that contracted things change their shape.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/08/2017 01:06:25
That would affect tick rate by direction and we established clocks tick at the same rate all over the globe independent of orbit around the sun.

Combine the Earth's rotation with it's orbital movement and the clocks vary in their ticking rates. Then consider that the Earth may be moving faster through space at one point of its orbit than the opposite point and you have them all slowing down and speeding up throughout the year.

Quote
Clocks should tick slower with the orbit than against the orbit. This is not observed.

If you mean on one side of the Earth versus the other, a difference will occur, but it cannot be measured independently of a frame of reference, and you'll get a different result depending on which frame you use. If you assert that the sun is stationary, you will not measure clocks ticking more slowly on one side of the Earth than the other, but if you assert that the sun is moving, you will.

Quote
Contraction is a faith issue. You cannot measure the contraction because your measuring stick becomes contracted. I recognize that same issue in GR dilation but we can observe dilation.

If you can show that contraction of object A must occur for frame B and that object B must contract for frame A, you know that either object A or B must be contracted. Not being able to tell which of them is contracted does not overturn the necessity for one of them to be contracted. That is why it is not a faith issue - to believe that neither is contracted is to believe in the impossible.

Quote
So you must be saying the same thing I do when light in the East and West fiber cable circles the Earth one falls short and one falls long in the circumference. In the cable's contracted state light auto corrects to match the North to south rate.

The contraction of the cable round the Earth does not reduce the distance the light has to travel to complete a circuit. The contraction of the MMX arm does have an effect though on the time taken for light to get along it and back because it reduces the distance to the mirror (which is the only thing that can bounce the light back). That contraction is the only thing that can adjust the tick rate for that path to keep it in sync with the perpendicular one.

Quote
And there is no way to prove the physical contraction model. No way to prove light slows down as a model.

Particle accelerators have already proved it through relativistic mass. Circular orbits must length contract on all scales.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 23/08/2017 13:29:35
Combine the Earth's rotation with it's orbital movement and the clocks vary in their ticking rates. Then consider that the Earth may be moving faster through space at one point of its orbit than the opposite point and you have them all slowing down and speeding up throughout the year.

So I guess the solar system moving and the galaxy moving affects the tick rate by direction also? While I agree the total energy available by relativity is affected the tick rate at sea level not so much. You would have that fiber cable contracting and expanding by the Earth second.


If you mean on one side of the Earth versus the other, a difference will occur, but it cannot be measured independently of a frame of reference, and you'll get a different result depending on which frame you use. If you assert that the sun is stationary, you will not measure clocks ticking more slowly on one side of the Earth than the other, but if you assert that the sun is moving, you will.

You can by sending a signal from the north or south pole to register the same simultaneity of relativity. Same with an atomic clock in the airplane relativity experiments. 12 hours at a different rate going ~1000 mph is within our ability to measure a difference.

 
If you can show that contraction of object A must occur for frame B and that object B must contract for frame A, you know that either object A or B must be contracted. Not being able to tell which of them is contracted does not overturn the necessity for one of them to be contracted. That is why it is not a faith issue - to believe that neither is contracted is to believe in the impossible.

Depending on the direction of the light an object can appear contracted or elongated. Consider your 0.5c. If light is closing on the physical object when the first photon hits the front of the object it falls off the back of the object at 2/3rds of the distance of the objects true length. No photon can travel further down the object than 2/3rds way. Why? Because when the first photon hits the rear moves forward to intercept each photon at 2/3rds the objects distance. If you add physical contraction than it becomes one half of the objects length. Now lets look at the other direction for light. The photon hits the back of the object and co-travels with the object at 0.5c. The length would appear to be twice the objects physical length.

Can you have physical and visual contraction to have the math work?

The contraction of the cable round the Earth does not reduce the distance the light has to travel to complete a circuit.

Are you suggesting light travels at different speeds in a contracted and non contracted direction? I can understand the closing and chasing directions for the mirror but if you add a change in the SoL I am not going to be a fan of that model.

The contraction of the MMX arm does have an effect though on the time taken for light to get along it and back because it reduces the distance to the mirror (which is the only thing that can bounce the light back).

Time and distance is c. Dilated time slowing tick rate by increased distance between energy particles in GR is a fractal change. SR is not a fractal change (speed by distance acceleration gravity vs. stationary attraction gravity). SR is distance through space energy independent of the object producing the light wave.

That contraction is the only thing that can adjust the tick rate for that path to keep it in sync with the perpendicular one.

Yes that is the only thing for your model. You are unwilling to challenge that model. I understand.

Particle accelerators have already proved it through relativistic mass. Circular orbits must length contract on all scales.

You believe relativistic mass increases with speed while not really understanding the cause of gravity. You believe the increase in gravity is the increase in mass. While the truth is the increase in gravity is the decrease in energy available to the particle.

Consider a BH. A sun grows to the point where the attraction on the surface of the sun becomes the speed of light. Energy can no longer keep atoms apart. They coalesce to the center removing all energy from the interior. There is no gradient to the center as gravity. The entire BH is a gravity particle. So it is the evacuation of energy that causes attraction of mass. Same thing with dilation of energy to the center of mass causing gravity. Energy is more dilated  the center of mass. Decreases tick rate because of distance between energy particles increases. The photon is confounded by those distances to measure the same speed of light. That is the fractal arrangement in GR.

There is much more going on than the simplistic model you perceive.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 23/08/2017 17:16:25
If there's length-contraction acting on it
The coin is not moving in the example. It's only intended to show that images are not a property of the objects.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/08/2017 23:32:57
So I guess the solar system moving and the galaxy moving affects the tick rate by direction also? While I agree the total energy available by relativity is affected the tick rate at sea level not so much. You would have that fiber cable contracting and expanding by the Earth second.

Movement of the sun and the galaxy will lead to changes in contraction at any point on the Earth's surface as the Earth rotates unless it's at the poles, but the sun isn't guaranteed to have moved unless we wait millions of years. We only have to wait a few weeks or months to guarantee that the Earth has moved though, which is why it's the Earth's orbit round the sun that's most important as it guarantees that the rate at which clocks at sea level cannot be ticking at the same rate as each other other than on average over a full rotation of the Earth.

If a planet could rotate at such a speed that a point on its surface moved at 0.866c relative to the centre and if that planet could remain spherical, it would take twice as much cable to stretch round the equator than to make a loop round over the poles. If in addition to that the planet is moving along at 0.866c on the same plane as the equator, on one side of the planet the equatorial cable will be uncontracted while on the opposite side it will be contracted three and a half times as much as the average contraction on the loop (and the surface of the Earth will have the same contraction acting on it in the same places). A clock sitting at any point on the equatorial loop will likewise vary in its ticking rate, sometimes ticking twice as often as the average and at other times ticking three and a half times slower than average. But if you analyse it from the frame of reference in which the planet is stationary, you won't detect any of that variation at all.

Quote
If you mean on one side of the Earth versus the other, a difference will occur, but it cannot be measured independently of a frame of reference, and you'll get a different result depending on which frame you use. If you assert that the sun is stationary, you will not measure clocks ticking more slowly on one side of the Earth than the other, but if you assert that the sun is moving, you will.

You can by sending a signal from the north or south pole to register the same simultaneity of relativity. Same with an atomic clock in the airplane relativity experiments. 12 hours at a different rate going ~1000 mph is within our ability to measure a difference.

You can what? What ever you're trying to do, it won't work - you'll calculate different things happening (in terms of what is contracting how much) depending on which frame of reference you base your calculation on.

Quote
Depending on the direction of the light an object can appear contracted or elongated. Consider your 0.5c. If light is closing on the physical object when the first photon hits the front of the object it falls off the back of the object at 2/3rds of the distance of the objects true length. No photon can travel further down the object than 2/3rds way. Why? Because when the first photon hits the rear moves forward to intercept each photon at 2/3rds the objects distance. If you add physical contraction than it becomes one half of the objects length. Now lets look at the other direction for light. The photon hits the back of the object and co-travels with the object at 0.5c. The length would appear to be twice the objects physical length.

If you measure length using a ruler which is co-moving with the thing it's measuring, the ruler will contract the same amount as the thing it's measuring, so that's no use. If you do it with a series of observers who are all moving past the object with timers and who will look to see if they are at one of the ends of the object when the timers reach a certain count value, you will have two of them report back that their timer timed out when an end of the object was passing them, and the distance between those two observers will be less than the length of the object that would be measured for it by a ruler that's co-moving with it (regardless of which direction the array of observers are passing the object in) - the synchronisation of their clocks (done on the basis that they aren't moving) will guarantee this. If you do it instead by moving past the object and timing how long it takes you to pass it, your clock will tick at different rates for each direction and will cancel out any difference in length, giving you the same length each way, and in both directions it will give you the same figure for the object's length, again less than the length measured by the co-moving ruler. A photon has no clock to do any such timing with as its functionality is frozen, so it can't measure any length at all.

Quote
Can you have physical and visual contraction to have the math work?

If you want to take a model of some of the the universe's content and produce images from it which look like the ones people in that universe would see, you have to have a model that applies length contraction and which takes into account the time it takes for light to get from each part of each object to the observer's eye. If you don't have physical length contraction in the model, it will produce warped images that don't look like the ones people in the real universe see, and the MMX in that model would also fail to produce a null result.

Quote
The contraction of the cable round the Earth does not reduce the distance the light has to travel to complete a circuit.

Are you suggesting light travels at different speeds in a contracted and non contracted direction? I can understand the closing and chasing directions for the mirror but if you add a change in the SoL I am not going to be a fan of that model.

The light doesn't care if the cable is contracted or not - it moves through space at c. (There is a slight slowing of it by the material of the cable, but we can show this to be an irrelevance by increasing the rotation speed so that any impact it has on the result isn't worth considering.) Likewise, the light doesn't care if the arm is contracted, but it will bounce back sooner if it's contracted because it won't have so far to go to reach the mirror. With the cable round the Earth, no amount of contraction can make the light go less distance to complete a circuit as the physical distance the light travels through space is not affected by that contraction.

Quote
Time and distance is c. Dilated time slowing tick rate by increased distance between energy particles in GR is a fractal change. SR is not a fractal change (speed by distance acceleration gravity vs. stationary attraction gravity). SR is distance through space energy independent of the object producing the light wave.

Unintelligible waffle.

Quote
That contraction is the only thing that can adjust the tick rate for that path to keep it in sync with the perpendicular one.

Yes that is the only thing for your model. You are unwilling to challenge that model. I understand.

I will not replace a working model with a dysfunctional one which depends on magic to fix its monumental failures.

Quote
You believe relativistic mass increases with speed while not really understanding the cause of gravity. You believe the increase in gravity is the increase in mass. While the truth is the increase in gravity is the decrease in energy available to the particle.

It isn't about gravity - it's about the way when you add energy into a moving object, not all of it converts into extra speed. The faster the object moves, the smaller the increase in speed as you add more energy to it such that it can never reach c. The pattern in which this happens requires a circular orbit to contract into an elliptical one as the system moves faster through space, and it is this that dictates the maths of length-contraction.

Quote
Consider a BH. A sun grows to the point where the attraction on the surface of the sun becomes the speed of light. Energy can no longer keep atoms apart. They coalesce to the center removing all energy from the interior. There is no gradient to the center as gravity. The entire BH is a gravity particle. So it is the evacuation of energy that causes attraction of mass. Same thing with dilation of energy to the center of mass causing gravity. Energy is more dilated  the center of mass. Decreases tick rate because of distance between energy particles increases. The photon is confounded by those distances to measure the same speed of light. That is the fractal arrangement in GR.

With a black hole, all the energy is in there too - it has not been removed, but none of that has anything to do with the price of fish.

Quote
There is much more going on than the simplistic model you perceive.

There is certainly more to the universe than relativity, but if we're discussing relativity and are looking at an area where gravity is irrelevant, we don't need to drift away from the subject unless the aim is to obfuscate things. A fuzzy model which doesn't have length-contraction is certainly not superior to a simple model that does have it because it's the latter model that fits the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/08/2017 23:43:43
If there's length-contraction acting on it
The coin is not moving in the example. It's only intended to show that images are not a property of the objects.

So what are you trying to say by bringing that into this discussion? If the coin is stationary and some observers see it as elliptical either because they're looking at it from an angle that makes it look elliptical or because they're moving past it at a high speed that makes it appear length-contracted, those observers are not seeing the true shape of the coin. If the coin is moving though, those observers who see it as round are not seeing the true shape of the coin, and many observers who see it as elliptical may not be seeing its true shape either. Everyone knows that they need to correct for visual distortions to see the true shape, but they also know that they can never know that they're seeing the true shape because they cannot tell if the coin is moving.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 24/08/2017 16:05:24
So what are you trying to say by bringing that into this discussion? If the coin is stationary and some observers see it as elliptical either because they're looking at it from an angle that makes it look elliptical or because they're moving past it at a high speed that makes it appear length-contracted, those observers are not seeing the true shape of the coin.

All views are equally valid by observed position. You try to diss relativity by using a strict interpretation of valid.


Movement of the sun and the galaxy will lead to changes in contraction at any point on the Earth's surface as the Earth rotates unless it's at the poles, but the sun isn't guaranteed to have moved unless we wait millions of years. We only have to wait a few weeks or months to guarantee that the Earth has moved though, which is why it's the Earth's orbit round the sun that's most important as it guarantees that the rate at which clocks at sea level cannot be ticking at the same rate as each other other than on average over a full rotation of the Earth.If a planet could rotate at such a speed that a point on its surface moved at 0.866c relative to the centre and if that planet could remain spherical, it would take twice as much cable to stretch round the equator than to make a loop round over the poles. If in addition to that the planet is moving along at 0.866c on the same plane as the equator, on one side of the planet the equatorial cable will be uncontracted while on the opposite side it will be contracted three and a half times as much as the average contraction on the loop (and the surface of the Earth will have the same contraction acting on it in the same places). A clock sitting at any point on the equatorial loop will likewise vary in its ticking rate, sometimes ticking twice as often as the average and at other times ticking three and a half times slower than average. But if you analyse it from the frame of reference in which the planet is stationary, you won't detect any of that variation at all.

Ok you either do not know the limits of relativity or you are stuck on 0.887. Since one direction of spin would allow ~1.7c lets look at the relativistic limit of spin and speed. At 0.5c speed through space and rotation of 0.5c the one direction would be c and the other direction at rest. So the forward spin the light would be relative to the spin and not move to an observer that could not observe anyway. The electron cycle using a physical clock likewise could not cycle. So no time would be recorded. In the opposite direction relative light is at rest and is moving relative 2c. c in one direction and c in the opposite direction relative is 2c. c being constant in any direction. So you have ticking in the opposite direction. Ok the physical object has zero length forward and a physical length backwards. I am not to keen on physical contraction. Explain your position on this.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/08/2017 21:34:13
All views are equally valid by observed position. You try to diss relativity by using a strict interpretation of valid.

They are not all equally valid when it comes to determining the true shape of the coin. I'm not dissing relativity - I'm the one who's looked at it most carefully and who has disproved all the models that can be labelled as SR while identifying modified models which are still potentially viable. All the viable ones depend on a preferred frame in one way or another, and that dictates that there is a real shape to the coin which is either circular or elliptical (and not both at once).

Quote
Ok you either do not know the limits of relativity or you are stuck on 0.887. Since one direction of spin would allow ~1.7c lets look at the relativistic limit of spin and speed. At 0.5c speed through space and rotation of 0.5c the one direction would be c and the other direction at rest. So the forward spin the light would be relative to the spin and not move to an observer that could not observe anyway. The electron cycle using a physical clock likewise could not cycle. So no time would be recorded. In the opposite direction relative light is at rest and is moving relative 2c. c in one direction and c in the opposite direction relative is 2c. c being constant in any direction. So you have ticking in the opposite direction. Ok the physical object has zero length forward and a physical length backwards. I am not to keen on physical contraction. Explain your position on this.

Again you have demonstrated a severe lack of understanding of relativity by tripping over one of the basics. I keep using 0.866c because it's convenient and saves using new figures each time just for the sake of it. That speed is the best one to use because it neatly leads to length contraction to 1/2 of the rest length, clocks ticking half as often, and it illustrates a key point about the correct addition of velocities never exceeding c. 0.866c + 0.866c = 0.99c once you factor in the effects of relativistic mass. If a stationary planet revolves such that a point on its equator is moving at 0.866c and you then move the planet so that it is travelling through space at 0.866c, it takes twice as long to complete each rotation as it did when it was at rest, the material at one point where it's moving through space fastest is moving at 0.99c and the material at the opposite point is (for a moment) not moving at all. There is a bunching up of material in the hemisphere that's moving forwards and a spreading out of material on the opposite side of the planet (which means that more of the material of the planet is on the faster moving side than the slower moving side at any given time). The contraction varies and keeps changing for any given part of the planet away from the axis, and this causes extreme warping. And yet, for an observer on the planet, no warping is measured at all (other than the length contraction caused by rotation which leads to the circumference round the equator being measured as twice as long as the circumference passing through the poles even though they measure that the planet is spherical in shape).

I found a couple of images via another forum which illustrate this warping of a rotating planet or disc that's either stationary or moving at high speed through space, so hopefully they'll work here too.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcasa.colorado.edu%2F%7Eajsh%2Fsr%2Fwheel.gif&hash=3e1dec0f75226ba15ac514fd3077d347)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcasa.colorado.edu%2F%7Eajsh%2Fsr%2Fcart.gif&hash=9527c7ea0b46580328e0c307bcb53326)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/08/2017 21:59:33
Quote from: David
And yet, for an observer on the planet, no warping is measured at all (other than the length contraction caused by rotation which leads to the circumference round the equator being measured as twice as long as the circumference passing through the poles even though they measure that the planet is spherical in shape).
I understand why the distance at the equator would be contracted, but I don't understand why it would be observable. If we would use a rope to measure the two distances for instance, it would contract when we would measure the equator, and stretch when we would measure the distance between the poles, so there would be no way to observe the difference.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 25/08/2017 00:02:50

Let's say there cable from NY to SF and you are sitting on the moon. There is a mirror on the SF side to return light. There is an event in NY an observer is able to view that moves to SF and the observer is able to watch the photon progress With his measuring stick on the moon. He measures the distance with his measuring stick. Taking the same position of termination and returned event the observer measures the returning light. His measurement is longer on the return trip. The cable did not change but the distance light traveled in each direction did.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 25/08/2017 13:54:04
The time light takes to make the roundtrip is observable, it has lead to the time dilation effect, but contraction is not. Things really live longer when they move, and they should contract too in their direction of motion, but that contraction is supposedly unobservable from any viewpoint.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 25/08/2017 14:50:43
On the Earth if you move East to West timing increases and so does reactions such as your cell rate of decline. You age faster in that direction because you are slowing down. If you go West to East reactions slow because you are moving faster. Definitely imperceptible.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 25/08/2017 15:16:19
It would be observable if the earth was rotating at .866c though, and contraction should still be unobservable.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/08/2017 22:54:42
I understand why the distance at the equator would be contracted, but I don't understand why it would be observable. If we would use a rope to measure the two distances for instance, it would contract when we would measure the equator, and stretch when we would measure the distance between the poles, so there would be no way to observe the difference.

If you start with a non-rotating disc and then spin it such that the edge is moving round at 0.866c, that edge will contract to half its rest length, so the disc will split and leave lots of gaps in it - the same amount of gap as there is remaining edge. If you manufacture the disc while it's rotating though, it needn't have the split as you can put twice as much material into the construction of the edge, but if you slow the disc down it will buckle as there will be too much material there for slower rotation speeds. A planet rotating with its edge doing 0.866c at the equator would (if it was possible for it to hold together with such a ridiculous rotation speed) rearrange its material to take up the extra space available, and that would shrink its size a fair amount in the process, but the end result would be that a measuring tape which stretches all the way round the equator when it's hovering over the planet and not rotating with it would only stretch half way round the equator if it was rotating with the planet. If the planet is somehow held in a spherical shape, that same measuring tape would stretch right round the planet over the poles whether it's rotating with the planet or not. Inhabitants of such a strange world would know that it takes them twice as long to go round their world on the equator than via both poles. If this planet is a small rock that they can drill holes through, they could have one pass through the centre which would enable them to measure the diameter with the same tape, at which point they'd see that the pole-to-pole hole distance is equal to the over-the-poles circumference distance divided by pi. If they drill another hole from the equator to an opposite point on the equator and measure that with their tape, it will give them the same answer, so they will be able to determine that that their planet is spherical despite the equator length being measured as two times pi times the diameter, and if they get off the planet and stop rotating with it, they'll see that it is indeed spherical, and they'll see the length contraction acting on its surface (most severely at the equator).

Let's say there cable from NY to SF and you are sitting on the moon. There is a mirror on the SF side to return light. There is an event in NY an observer is able to view that moves to SF and the observer is able to watch the photon progress With his measuring stick on the moon. He measures the distance with his measuring stick. Taking the same position of termination and returned event the observer measures the returning light. His measurement is longer on the return trip. The cable did not change but the distance light traveled in each direction did.

That's right, and any contraction of the cable is unimportant in this case as it makes no difference to how far the light has to travel to complete the trip.

The time light takes to make the roundtrip is observable, it has lead to the time dilation effect, but contraction is not. Things really live longer when they move, and they should contract too in their direction of motion, but that contraction is supposedly unobservable from any viewpoint.

The contraction is fully observable to any well-positioned uncontracted observers, but as none of them know which observers are uncontracted, if the contracted ones think they're uncontracted, they'll see the uncontracted ones as contracted instead.

On the Earth if you move East to West timing increases and so does reactions such as your cell rate of decline. You age faster in that direction because you are slowing down. If you go West to East reactions slow because you are moving faster. Definitely imperceptible.

That's all correct.

It would be observable if the earth was rotating at .866c though, and contraction should still be unobservable.

The contraction is only unobservable to the people who are standing on the contracted surface and who have the same contraction applying to them. If you hover over the planet and don't rotate with it, the contraction will then be visible to you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/08/2017 00:59:38
Quote from: David
If you start with a non-rotating disc and then spin it such that the edge is moving round at 0.866c, that edge will contract to half its rest length, so the disc will split and leave lots of gaps in it - the same amount of gap as there is remaining edge.
It means that contraction is observable even if we are rotating with the disc. Relativists use to say that contraction is not physical, so I thought it was unobservable. What do they say when you present that mind experiment?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/08/2017 02:06:58
Quote from: David
If you start with a non-rotating disc and then spin it such that the edge is moving round at 0.866c, that edge will contract to half its rest length, so the disc will split and leave lots of gaps in it - the same amount of gap as there is remaining edge.
It means that contraction is observable even if we are rotating with the disc. Relativists use to say that contraction is not physical, so I thought it was unobservable. What do they say when you present that mind experiment?

You hear a lot of irrational nonsense from people on the establishment side on this point, but they are able to get away with it to a large extent because it's impossible to turn the thought experiments into practical real experiments - the centrifugal "force" would tear a rotating disc to pieces before you could see the effects of the length contraction acting on its edge. It is therefore only reason that can be used to explore this through thought experiments, and the establishment isn't good at reasoning - they claim they're doing it and that they're doing it properly, but they actually make a mockery of it. The edge cannot fill the whole space though if it is spinning as it has to display length contraction to stationary observers - they will measure it as taking up half the space and they will have to measure something else taking up the other half. They can close in the space between two non-rotating discs and use those to measure which part of the rotating disc is in between them at each point around the edge, all taking photos of the adjacent rotating disc (no time delay for the photons to go from rotating disc to sensors), with the cameras' clocks all synchronised for the rest frame of the non-rotating discs. The top SR people probably do recognise that this is the case, but for every one of those there are tens of thousands of "fanboys" who think they understand SR but don't. They are misled by the "ladder paradox" into thinking that ladder that's longer than a garage isn't really short enough to fit into it but is made to appear to fit inside it with both the doors closed for a moment because the doors aren't really closed at the same time, but in the absolute frame, the doors really can be closed at the same time with the ladder fitting inside. If the garage is moving and the ladder is stationary, it's then that the doors are closed at different times, and the ladder (which is twice the length of the garage when they're co-moving with each other) will at that moment be four times the length of the garage. But the truth of physical length contraction is revealed by a disc with eight ladders moving past it on tangents at 0.866c, each on a path angled at 45 degrees to the nearest two other ladders. If they all pass the disc at the same moment, they can momentarily form a ring around the disc in which each is touching the ladder in front and the one behind at the same moment. If they were co-moving with the disc, you could not fit them into that space as they'd all be twice as long.

If you go to my ref-frame camera program ( http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/ref-frame-camera.htm ) and load the fourth set of example objects (you have to type "d" into the dialog box after clicking the first button), you'll see a blue ring with eight red or yellow boxes round its edge, though only the corners of the boxes are shown. Type the S key to unfreeze the action (or to freeze it if it's already moving) - the boxes are moving past the disc at 0.866c. Press the D key to change the direction if they move too far away from the disc. Some of the number keys are pre-programmed to select different reference frames, so type 2 to select the reference frame of the red box at the bottom, or 3 to select the red one on the right-hand side - you can then see them at their full uncontracted length while all the other objects display the length contraction that applies to them for that frame. Type 1 to return to the disc's reference frame - all eight boxes are contracted to half their rest length for this frame. If these boxes were not moving relative to the disc, each would be touching its two closest neighbours. Because they're moving at a speed that contracts them to half their rest length though, you could fit 16 of them round the disc instead of eight, and if you hooked them all together at that moment, they would rotate round the disc for as long as you like without getting in each other's way - this also works regardless of which frame might be the absolute frame of reference, so they will still fit in that space without needing any tricks to do with the timing of doors being closed or open like with the ladder paradox. Sixteen boxes definitively must fit in the space of eight if they're moving round the disc at 0.866c.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 26/08/2017 12:28:32
David


   You are using circular logic all based on your model of contraction strictly based on clocks ticking at the same rate in any orientation. Yours is only one model that cannot be verified except through math. Math does not prove a theory is correct. Math only proves a theory is not correct.

   The ladder paradox is based on simultaneity of relativity showing the signal to get to the doors affect the synchronicity of the doors being closed at the same time. While it's useful to show simultaneity of relativity it does not prove contraction. The design of contraction eliminates a testable measurement. Your model passes the hurdle of math but math does not prove your model.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/08/2017 16:42:15
Quote from: David
If you go to my ref-frame camera program ( http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/ref-frame-camera.htm ) and load the fourth set of example objects (you have to type "d" into the dialog box after clicking the first button), you'll see a blue ring with eight red or yellow boxes round its edge, though only the corners of the boxes are shown.
I already had a glance at this simulation but I didn't understand it and it didn't seem to work properly. I load object D, I change the reference frame number, and nothing changes. To get a change, I have to change its speed. You said that the boxes were all moving at .866c with regard to the boxes at rest in the middle, so I understand that we can chose another reference frame than this one, which means that we can consider that one of the moving box is at rest, but why should we consider that it moves at other speeds than those two ones? And why can't we get a change when we change the reference frame without changing the speed?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 26/08/2017 18:31:39
David Cooper;
The coin has a diameter of 1 unit length. The coin has the diameter oriented along x, the direction of motion. A and B each have an identical coin. B passes A at speed v. A measures the B-coin x diameter as 1/γ. B measures the A-coin x diameter as 1/γ. Are their measurements correct? Yes. One may be length contracted via em field deformation, and the other via time dilation for the observer. It may even be a combination of both. Since perception is reality confined to the mind of the observer, both are real or true, and based on laws of universal behavior. Perception does not alter the object being observed. SR is also a theory of perception, which is why it's so observer dependent.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/08/2017 23:38:43
David

   You are using circular logic all based on your model of contraction strictly based on clocks ticking at the same rate in any orientation. Yours is only one model that cannot be verified except through math. Math does not prove a theory is correct. Math only proves a theory is not correct.

   The ladder paradox is based on simultaneity of relativity showing the signal to get to the doors affect the synchronicity of the doors being closed at the same time. While it's useful to show simultaneity of relativity it does not prove contraction. The design of contraction eliminates a testable measurement. Your model passes the hurdle of math but math does not prove your model.
Its the only model that could explain the twins paradox in a way that I could understand, and of course the MM experiment. I'm seventy, so it took 50 years before somebody comes with an understandable solution. Either I'm hard to convince, either nobody had the right way to explain relativity. I'm bad at maths because I forgot about them a lot, so its not the maths that convinced me even if I know they are part of David's simulations, it's the simulations themselves. How come you're not convinced yet? I didn't even believe in the relativity principle before I saw them and you do. Do you have a hidden goal? One that you cannot explicitly show otherwise people would think you are crazy? We're all crazy anyway so why bother. :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/08/2017 01:19:11
You are using circular logic all based on your model of contraction strictly based on clocks ticking at the same rate in any orientation. Yours is only one model that cannot be verified except through math. Math does not prove a theory is correct. Math only proves a theory is not correct.

There is no circularity in the logic. Particle accelerators show how much energy goes into a particle and how its speed is controlled in such a way that it can never go faster than c, and you see all that energy come back out when it collides head-on with another particle. The way relativistic mass builds up forces length contraction. The null result of the MMX shows too that length contraction is real. Maths proves that theories that don't have length contraction are not correct.

Quote
The ladder paradox is based on simultaneity of relativity showing the signal to get to the doors affect the synchronicity of the doors being closed at the same time. While it's useful to show simultaneity of relativity it does not prove contraction. The design of contraction eliminates a testable measurement. Your model passes the hurdle of math but math does not prove your model.

I mentioned the ladder paradox because it illustrates why some people learn the wrong lessons from it and end up thinking there is no length contraction. I am not using it as proof of length contraction, but to show how easy it is for people to end up being mislead by good education.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/08/2017 01:33:21
I already had a glance at this simulation but I didn't understand it and it didn't seem to work properly. I load object D, I change the reference frame number, and nothing changes.

It may be that some of the functionality doesn't work on more recent browsers, but I have no way to test that. Do the letter keys S and D function in the way I described or is that broken too?

Quote
You said that the boxes were all moving at .866c with regard to the boxes at rest in the middle, so I understand that we can chose another reference frame than this one, which means that we can consider that one of the moving box is at rest, but why should we consider that it moves at other speeds than those two ones? And why can't we get a change when we change the reference frame without changing the speed?

The initial frame shows all objects with their actual speeds and the actual length contractions acting on them. When you change to a different frame, you see the "God view" for the new frame instead (which shows a distorted version of reality, but which also looks just as real and which for observers co-moving with it behaves exactly as if it is the absolute frame). You can set it to display an infinite number of different frames, and each box can be made to appear to have any speed you like by selecting a frame that is moving at that speed relative to it. Changing the frame is done by typing in the speed of the new frame relative to the absolute frame, so you can't change frame without changing that speed, but the view continues to track the blue disc no matter which frame you select.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/08/2017 01:41:53
The coin has a diameter of 1 unit length. The coin has the diameter oriented along x, the direction of motion. A and B each have an identical coin. B passes A at speed v. A measures the B-coin x diameter as 1/γ. B measures the A-coin x diameter as 1/γ. Are their measurements correct? Yes. One may be length contracted via em field deformation, and the other via time dilation for the observer. It may even be a combination of both. Since perception is reality confined to the mind of the observer, both are real or true, and based on laws of universal behavior. Perception does not alter the object being observed. SR is also a theory of perception, which is why it's so observer dependent.

There is an absolute reality underlying everything which is not turned into ambiguous slodge by the perceptions of monkeys looking at coins. The nature of that reality is either logical or magical, and if it's the former, the coin cannot both be circular in that reality and elliptical at the same time. The only SR models that can free themselves of an absolute frame of reference are ones which depend on magic instead of logic for their functionality because one of them destroys causality, another has event-meshing failures and something equivalent to a preferred frame, and the third has events magically unhappen and rehappen every time the universe changes frame to prove to itself that it isn't running everything by the same frame all the time (so that it can claim not to have an absolute frame). You can take your pick, but I'm not impressed by theories that rely on magic for their functionality.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/08/2017 01:49:35
And I'm still waiting for someone (anyone in the world, or an intelligent being from outer space - I'm not fussy on that score) to show me a model of SR that can do what it claims on the tin without breaking its own rules and without it doing magical things like having events unhappen and rehappen as the model changes the frame it's using to generate events as it generates the future out of the past. You'd think there would be a demonstration model out there for everyone to admire, but no - they don't have one! The best they've got is the static block where their maths works beautifully for running imaginary physics in a pre-built block in which nothing actually moves or changes at all, but how does their model build that block in the first place without using different physics? The answer is that they can't do it - all they can do is bury their heads in the sand and go on asserting that their model can do what it manifestly cannot do.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 27/08/2017 17:31:36
It may be that some of the functionality doesn't work on more recent browsers, but I have no way to test that. Do the letter keys S and D function in the way I described or is that broken too?
S and D keys do function. I think it's me that doesn't.

Quote
The initial frame shows all objects with their actual speeds and the actual length contractions acting on them. When you change to a different frame, you see the "God view" for the new frame instead (which shows a distorted version of reality, but which also looks just as real and which for observers co-moving with it behaves exactly as if it is the absolute frame). You can set it to display an infinite number of different frames, and each box can be made to appear to have any speed you like by selecting a frame that is moving at that speed relative to it. Changing the frame is done by typing in the speed of the new frame relative to the absolute frame, so you can't change frame without changing that speed, but the view continues to track the blue disc no matter which frame you select.
I think I get it. When we give a speed to a frame, it can move in any direction, not only in the one it has with regard to the blue boxes when they are considered at rest. If we give a speed to the right to a frame for instance, all the system should be considered to move to the right while the red boxes are still considered moving at a tangent to the blue ones. In this case, I think that the simulation would be a lot easier to understand if the whole system would already be traveling to the right on the screen before we hit the S key. That's what you simulation of the MMx does.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/08/2017 23:08:45
S and D keys do function. I think it's me that doesn't.

Do the number keys not work though? If your keyboard is set up for French, don't use a shift key with them: use &, é, ", etc. instead and see if that helps.

Quote
When we give a speed to a frame, it can move in any direction, not only in the one it has with regard to the blue boxes when they are considered at rest. If we give a speed to the right to a frame for instance, all the system should be considered to move to the right while the red boxes are still considered moving at a tangent to the blue ones.

If you select a frame that's moving to the right, that would make the blue disc move to the left but it doesn't because we then track it to keep it on the screen - this is done so that we can see the events play out there for longer than a short time. If everyone had a wall-sized display with 20,000 pixels from one side to the other I would have programmed it differently and not bothered to track it.

Quote
In this case, I think that the simulation would be a lot easier to understand if the whole system would already be traveling to the right on the screen before we hit the S key. That's what you simulation of the MMx does.

I wrote it to track objects that are stationary in the absolute frame and to let you change the frame of reference to see how they warp while still looking at them, and to show the effect of the changes on other objects that are moving through the absolute frame. I could modify it to track other objects. I'd like to put clocks into it too so that you'd be able to see one of the big effects of changing frame in the LET model - that would show clearly that it shows some objects further in the future than others while showing others back in the past and making them look simultaneous. This effect leads to the action happening faster as you go to more extreme frames, not because things are fundamentally happening any faster, but because it's projecting into the future at a faster rate. For example, if you set it to a frame that's moving to the right, the left of the screen shows the objects there as they were in the past while the right of the screen shows objects as they will be in the future. Change to a frame moving the opposite way and that all reverses, which means that events on the right unhappen while a whole stack of events on the left that hadn't happened suddenly have happened.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/08/2017 16:26:42
Quote from: David
If you select a frame that's moving to the right, that would make the blue disc move to the left but it doesn't because we then track it to keep it on the screen - this is done so that we can see the events play out there for longer than a short time. If everyone had a wall-sized display with 20,000 pixels from one side to the other I would have programmed it differently and not bothered to track it.
A grid representing ether may then help us to understand faster that a box is at rest when we chose it. It would also be better if we could change the frame without changing the speed of the target, and it would help if it was a key that we would hit to change it. By the way, I just noticed that it was not the speed of the frame that we could change, but the speed of what you call the target, which is the blue part of the simulation. I discovered that while changing the frame with object a. But even if I now know that, it is still a bit confusing for me not to have ether in the background.

Object c has four boxes getting away from the target, but the orange and white ones are both following the same diagonal direction while not being deformed the same, so I suspect it is due to a bug. I also suspect that the four diagonal blue boxes on object d contain a bug, because the are not square when the other four are.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest4091 on 28/08/2017 20:19:51
the coin cannot both be circular in that reality and elliptical at the same time.
Nothing in the post says states that. You are reading things into the post that aren't there.Or you don't comprehend what you are reading.
Perception does not alter the object being observed.!
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/08/2017 20:54:13
A grid representing ether may then help us to understand faster that a box is at rest when we chose it.

While I said that it tracks the blue disc regardless of which frame it's set to, it's actually tracking the absolute frame, so a grid wouldn't move at all apart from distorting differently for different frames, and those distortions would make it hard to program a grid in using JavaScript. I could use an image of a grid covering the screen for one frame, but I'd have to have a different image for every frame that the user might select, and that would take an infinite number of images. To make lines out of lots of dots would slow the program to a crawl (or halt) because each dot is a piece of HTML punctuation that isn't designed to be used for graphics.

Quote
It would also be better if we could change the frame without changing the speed of the target, and it would help if it was a key that we would hit to change it. By the way, I just noticed that it was not the speed of the frame that we could change, but the speed of what you call the target, which is the blue part of the simulation. I discovered that while changing the frame with object a.

When you change frame, you are selecting the speed of the new frame relative to the absolute frame, and that is either done using the number keys or by clicking the "set frame velocity" button and typing in two vectors for the required frame.

Quote
But even if I now know that, it is still a bit confusing for me not to have ether in the background.

The fabric of space remains fixed to the screen, but it does become distorted, as shown by the blue square in example object set "a". Whatever that blue square does, you only have to imagine it as a square in a grid to visualise what the rest of that grid would be doing.

Quote
Object c has four boxes getting away from the target, but the orange and white ones are both following the same diagonal direction while not being deformed the same, so I suspect it is due to a bug.

The orange and white objects are both squares, as is revealed when you type number key 4, assuming that the number keys work for you. (Have you tried them again?) If those keys aren't working, you can type in the following vectors for the frames that I've mapped to the first four number keys: key 1 = 0, 0; key 2 = 0.866, 0; key 3 = 0, 0.866; key 4 = 0.433, 0.866.

If you select the frame in which the orange and white objects are square, it's easy to imagine drawing a circle though four dots of each object instead of a square. When you switch to a different frame and they no longer look square, you could draw an ellipse through the four dots of each object instead of a circle, and if you do that, the ellipse for the orange and white objects would be identical to each other for any frame.

Quote
I also suspect that the four diagonal blue boxes on object d contain a bug, because the are not square when the other four are.

The blue dots should not be seen as marking out squares - they are there solely to represent a single blue disc, the outer 16 all sitting exactly on a circle while the inner 16 all sit exactly on a smaller circle.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/08/2017 22:18:44
I now understand why you call it a target, so I think you should describe it like that on your page, and maybe you could put a real target when people select object D at the beginning and hide it after when they change the velocity of the target.

Quote
The fabric of space remains fixed to the screen, but it does become distorted, as shown by the blue square in example object set "a". Whatever that blue square does, you only have to imagine it as a square in a grid to visualize what the rest of that grid would be doing.
I already saw that kind of deformation on wiki's Relativistic Doppler effect page but I didn't understand it. Does it mean that the objects at the front would look dilated and those at the rear would look contracted? If so, I'm possibly missing something because if I am moving towards an object, it seems to me that the light from the rear part of the object would hit me sooner than if I would have been at rest, so that the object should look contracted, not dilated.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/XYCoordinates.gif)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/08/2017 22:39:29
the coin cannot both be circular in that reality and elliptical at the same time.
Nothing in the post says states that.

That's precisely why I said it - it's an addition to what you said.

Quote
You are reading things into the post that aren't there.

I was building upon what you said. It is important that people understand that there is a deeper reality beyond the reality of the data documenting reality (which is in the perception).

Quote
Perception does not alter the object being observed.!

Nothing in my post points to any disagreement on that point.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/08/2017 23:22:59
I now understand why you call it a target, so I think you should describe it like that on your page, and maybe you could put a real target in the beginning when people select object D at the beginning and hide it after when they change the velocity of the target.

I don't remember ever calling it a target. The program is based on the idea of there being a reference frame camera set up in the absolute frame of reference, and the camera never moves at all. The camera consists of an array of sensors spread out far and wide over a plain so that they can photograph what is right next to them without any time delays for the light to reach them. Each of these sensors records a pixel for the photos that the camera takes, and each sensor-pixel device has a clock that tells it when to take a picture. Simply by changing the synchronisation of the clocks, this camera can take "God view" photos of the action for any frame of reference at all (within a 2D universe, though it could be done with a 3D universe too). That is actually why it automatically tracks the absolute frame, because the camera never moves, although it could track anything simply by selecting different parts of the image to display for each frame that it displays.

Quote
I already saw that kind of deformation on wiki's Relativistic Doppler effect page but I didn't understand it. Does it mean that the objects at the front would look dilated and those at the rear would look contracted? If so, I'm possibly missing something because if I am moving towards an object, it seems to me that the light from the rear part of the object would hit me sooner than if I would have been at rest, so that the object should look contracted, not dilated.

No, it's a different kind of deformation. My program shows the actual physical length contraction that applies to objects whenever you set it to the absolute frame. When you set it to other frames, you see the apparent length contraction instead of the actual contraction, and by "apparent", I am still talking about "God views" where all the photon-travel delays are eliminated. The actual view that we get from within the universe is normally not the same as the "God view" because we can see additional distortions caused by delays in light reaching us from the objects we're seeing (delays which do not affect the ref-frame camera), and the moving image you've posted shows those additional distortions rather than the ones relating to length contraction. The "God view" equivalent of that image would only have horizontal and vertical lines in it with the vertical ones getting closer together as the speed of the observer goes up. The reference frame camera records pixels locally by having sensors spread out over the whole area, but a normal camera has them all at one single place with an image focused onto it through a lens, and so normal cameras (like our eyes) see the warping  in the way your moving diagram shows it. The dark line that starts vertical and then bends into a V shape represents a line that remains completely vertical in the "God view", but the normal eye sees the further away parts of it further ahead of where they really are. If you cross a road at 90 degrees at high speed, the whole road will remain perpendicular to your course of travel and will appear that way in the "God view" as photographed by a ref-frame camera, and it will be seen that way too to someone looking down on you from a million miles above, but to your eyes you will see the road bend underneath you and it will appear to run out to both sides of you ahead of you. Someone else moving alongside you will see the road bend directly under them instead of you, and here's the most interesting bit of it: they will see you directly to the side of them while you see them directly to the side of you (you're level with each other, neither ahead nor behind). You are both over the road at the same time, but at the point when you look straight down at the road and know that you're crossing it (and know that they must be crossing it too), it looks to you as if they haven't reached the road yet because the road appears to go off at an angle that takes it ahead of them. They see the same with you, seeing you cross the road after they've crossed it, and that's because they're seeing the past rather than the present, just as you're seeing their past rather than their present. The ref-frame camera produces images that show a single moment, so it shows both of you crossing a straight road at the exact same time, but that image cannot be seen by you immediately as it takes time to collect all of the data of the picture it recorded to present it to you, so you can only see "God views" in the real universe some time after the event, either captured earlier by a ref-frame camera or calculated and drawn by a program that works out how to remove all the delay-related distortions. A distant observer can see "God views" directly with his own eyes, but he too has to wait a long time for those images to reach him, and it only works for him because light from every part of the scene takes practically the same length of time to reach him, thereby eliminating the visual distortions that close-up observers see.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 30/08/2017 19:32:30
I still don't understand what you mean, so let's imagine a simpler object: a blue circle and a red box moving away from the circle at .866c. If the camera takes a picture of the red box at the moment it goes by, the box will be half its size in the direction of motion. Now if we use a reference frame in which the red box is considered at rest, then to me, the camera has to change reference frame too otherwise it doesn't make sense. But why would a god's view change when we change reference frame? 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 30/08/2017 23:59:44
Now if we use a reference frame in which the red box is considered at rest, then to me, the camera has to change reference frame too otherwise it doesn't make sense.

The idea with the reference frame camera is that it is a distributed camera which takes photographs by recording each pixel locally, and because it's already everywhere, it can take "God view" photos, and do so for any reference frame just by changing the synchronisation of the clocks at the pixels. Like God, the camera is everywhere.

Quote
But why would a god's view change when we change reference frame?

There's only one fundamental "God view", and that's tied to the absolute frame. The "God views" for other frames are ones that would be the fundamental "God view" if they were the absolute frame.

When you run the program, it always advances the action at the same rate for the time of the absolute frame behind the scenes, and yet the more extreme the frame you set it to, the faster the action appears to run on the screen because the synchronisation goes so far out with parts of each picture are taken further away in the future (with longer and longer delays before those pixels take their part of the image) while the opposite part of the image has it's pixels take their part of the image further and further back in the past.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 31/08/2017 11:57:27

The absolute frame is c. Without Energy c there would be no motion at all. Rather than a stationary frame of the Aether it's a spin particle Aether that move the electrons which allows motion to exist in the first place. Everyone seems to believe in motion for nothing and no reason, when it is staring them in the face. The spin Aether creates all of our physical parameters and why everything is the inverse square of the distance. Volume, sight for distance, gravity and magnetism. Or do you believe it is just a coincidence? E=mc^2 one c for space and one for moving the electron in a helix.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/09/2017 16:16:28
There's only one fundamental "God view", and that's tied to the absolute frame. The "God views" for other frames are ones that would be the fundamental "God view" if they were the absolute frame.
In my example with the blue circle and the red box, the box would be moving away from the circle and it would look contracted in the direction of motion if we would take a picture of it while the camera is at rest in the circle's frame. Now, tell me what would happen to the picture if I would select the box as the reference frame? Normally, it is the circle that should look contracted, and it should be getting away from the box too. But when I try that on your objects, nothing changes, the box is still getting away from the circle, and it still looks contracted.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: xersanozgen on 01/09/2017 17:25:53
The absolute frame is c.

The Light as a Super Reference Frame

https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858 (https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858)

Abstract: Light kinematics and the special relativity can be reviewed accompanied with more dimensions,
factors, conditions and especially revision of postulates. The Special Theory of Relativity gives the reference role to a
moving body or its fictive light source. We analyzed reverse/opposite arrangement: The light is assigned as a
reference frame and the other/local actors (moving body/source/observer) undertake relative roles. This revise/new
concept is supported by the same experiments that they are effective for special theory. And new method is more
functional for light kinematics and it allows cosmological analysis by providing the simultaneity and equivalency
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/09/2017 20:12:40
]In my example with the blue circle and the red box, the box would be moving away from the circle and it would look contracted in the direction of motion if we would take a picture of it while the camera is at rest in the circle's frame. Now, tell me what would happen to the picture if I would select the box as the reference frame? Normally, it is the circle that should look contracted, and it should be getting away from the box too. But when I try that on your objects, nothing changes, the box is still getting away from the circle, and it still looks contracted.

If you select the set of objects called "d", you'll see eight boxes (round the uncontracted blue disc) which are all contracted to half their rest length. If you select a frame moving up/down/left/right at 0.866c you should find that one of the red boxes doubles in length because it's now at rest in the selected frame (while the blue disc will be contracted instead). None of the other boxes will be at rest, so they will continue to show contraction, although two of the yellow ones will be less contracted than before because they are moving in similar directions to the uncontracted red box. If you are able to use the number keys to change frame (I still don't know if that works on your machine), pressing 2 should make the red box at the bottom fully decontract, while 3 will do the same for the red box on the right.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/09/2017 01:06:59
The absolute frame is c.

The Light as a Super Reference Frame

https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858 (https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858)

It's a mangling of language to call light or c a frame. Light moves in an infinite number of different directions and light moving in each of those directions would be at rest in an infinite number of different "frames" (none of which behave like reference frames). The actual reference frame that comes from light is the absolute frame through which light travels at c, and labelling that frame as LCS is just making up another name for "the absolute frame".
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: xersanozgen on 02/09/2017 09:05:45
The absolute frame is c.

The Light as a Super Reference Frame

https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858 (https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858)

It's a mangling of language to call light or c a frame. Light moves in an infinite number of different directions and light moving in each of those directions would be at rest in an infinite number of different "frames" (none of which behave like reference frames). The actual reference frame that comes from light is the absolute frame through which light travels at c, and labelling that frame as LCS is just making up another name for "the absolute frame".


I attach importance to management of mental references for our daily life and also the science. LCS concept is generated due to the measured value of light's velocity that is considered as relative speed according to merely outmost frame (space). The measured value is always universal velocity of the light, (not relative speed according to source or local place). Yes we can measure and get the same value on everywhere. And we know that the light never get an addition from its source's speed.Besides, simultaneous measurement results are the same for all directions (isotrophic).  In accordance with Galilean relativity principle (about uniform motion) the light is already has essential qualities (linear path and fixed speed).

To consider and assign local objects/frames for analysis/operation is an anthropocentric attitude/habit.

You are right for the motion of the light; the light is not a tangible object. Therefore, the reference frame of universal velocity of light is assigned as co-reference frame for an identified photon and other actors (observer, source, etc.).  This outmost/most external co reference frame is space or LCS (Light Coordinate System).


The theory SR allows for this method; because in accordance with SR mentality, the light's all relative velocities are the same according to every frames. I prefer the outmost frame for light kinematics analyses. 

LCS concept is an comprehensible method perhaps like abstract math.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 02/09/2017 12:56:31
  c is energy. Energy is of space. Space is of particles with different densities and the cause of red shift. The densities can be from SR or GR and have equivalence between them. The space particles have spin. That spin (c) is the cause of motion itself as in moving the electrons. Light and all spectrum waves are just that (waves). Since the particles of space propagates waves energy can be transferred. This is the wave and particle. All Electrons are moving at c in a helix (life is a clone of that helix as macro mass). The dual slit experiment is just a wave on the sea of particles. There is no linear particle going the speed of light. We shoot the representative wave of an electron same as the photon is a representative wave of the electron jump.

The timing associated with each (frame) is a relative ratio of c being used for kinetic energy and what energy is available to the maximum frame of c. There would be no physical laws without the sea of c because there would be no motion It's staring us right in the face but motion was always a part of us so we take it for granted. There are no strings in 3d only particles closer together. Pie proves that there is no such thing as a perfect circle thus no strings. The electrons travel through a triangular web of spin energy that is complimentary to motion as a helix. This would be similar to a string in theory. The distance between particles of c can never be equidistant but be somewhat uniform in structure. This allows the flex that forms the photons and all other waves.

Gravity is the dilation of mass to the center of mass being the most dilated space particles in the spin state. Al mass is attracted to the greatest dilated space by the inverse square of the distance. There is less friction with mass the more dilated the energy state causing gravity.

Natural magnets have an alignment of its spin state. Right hand going in and right hand going out the other side. So mirror images have opposing spin states while opposites continue the spin direction.

Motion is of space and c is absolute motion. The frame which controls all frames.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/09/2017 15:54:53
  c is energy. Energy is of space.

I must correct your ill informed logic.  c is a constant speed 300,000 km/s

The potential energy of space is ''dormant'' unless interacting.

pEc0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif=kE=w    where w is work
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 02/09/2017 17:01:52
I must correct your ill informed logic.  c is a constant speed 300,000 km/s

Yes and what causes the 300,000 km/s in a Vacuum?  If you limit your understanding to mass and not energy given to mass of course you will need to correct it to one dimension of mass. You maintain a blinds eye to the constant speed of the electron at sea level confounded with the constant speed of light at sea level in a vacuum.

You feel the need to limit your view to macro mass. That is a poor choice in my estimation. To much coincidence not to have a control  mechanism.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 02/09/2017 20:19:28
If you select the set of objects called "d", you'll see eight boxes (round the uncontracted blue disc) which are all contracted to half their rest length.
They move at a tangent to the blue objects, so they should be contracted in the direction of their motion, but they are stretched instead. I reread your explanations on MSB, and I have the feeling that you are accounting for two different relativistic phenomenon at a time: the contraction issued from the MMx experiment, and the way we would see an object approaching or getting away from us at a relativistic speed. A directly approaching object would look stretched because we would see its front before its rear, and because the front of the object would thus have traveled toward us more than the rear, and inversely, a directly departing object would look contracted because we would see its rear before its front, and because the rear of the object would thus have traveled away from us more than the front. An object moving at a tangent should thus look stretched before it hits the tangential point, and contracted after, thus it should look normal right in the middle. Now, I think you're adding the contraction from the MMx in the equation that calculates the coordinates. Is that so?

Quote
If you select a frame moving up/down/left/right at 0.866c you should find that one of the red boxes doubles in length because it's now at rest in the selected frame (while the blue disc will be contracted instead). None of the other boxes will be at rest, so they will continue to show contraction, although two of the yellow ones will be less contracted than before because they are moving in similar directions to the uncontracted red box. If you are able to use the number keys to change frame (I still don't know if that works on your machine), pressing 2 should make the red box at the bottom fully decontract, while 3 will do the same for the red box on the right.
Only pressing 2 or writing 2 changes the look, but it doesn't change the same way: pressing 2 deforms more the object than writing 2. You also said that the blue dots were representing circles, but on your page, we can select 16 objects to get their coordinates, and 8 square-like objects are made out of blue dots.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/09/2017 22:24:21
They move at a tangent to the blue objects, so they should be contracted in the direction of their motion, but they are stretched instead.

They are not squares, but long rectangles, and they have been contracted into shapes that are still rectangles. When you press the 2 key, the bottom red rectangle displays its rest length, this being twice as long as you see the rectangles in the absolute frame view (key 0).

Quote
I reread your explanations on MSB, and I have the feeling that you are accounting for two different relativistic phenomenon at a time: the contraction issued from the MMx experiment, and the way we would see an object approaching or getting away from us at a relativistic speed. A directly approaching object would look stretched because we would see its front before its rear, and because the front of the object would thus have traveled toward us more than the rear, and inversely, a directly departing object would look contracted because we would see its rear before its front, and because the rear of the object would thus have traveled away from us more than the front.

The ref-frame camera program does not show any kind of stretching or contracting of the latter kind - it only shows the length-contraction of relativity.

Quote
An object moving at a tangent should thus look stretched before it hits the tangential point, and contracted after, thus it should look normal right in the middle. Now, I think you're adding the contraction from the MMx in the equation that calculates the coordinates. Is that so?

All objects are programmed in with absolute-frame coordinates, so the rectangles are programmed in at half their rest length because they're all moving at 0.866c. When you view from the absolute frame you see them maintain the same amount of contraction wherever they go. When you switch to a different frame (e.g. by typing the 2 key), you will change the lengths of all the objects, but again they will then maintain those lengths so long as you view them using that frame - their lengths don't vary as they move around. A ref-frame camera takes "God view" photos which can be viewed like "God view" video and they are totally free of the kind of delays that cause the kind of distortions you're talking about.

Quote
Only pressing 2 or writing 2 changes the look, but it doesn't change the same way: pressing 2 deforms more the object than writing 2.

Where are you writing 2, and why? The 2 key is equivalent to typing in 0.866 and 0 for the two vectors.

Quote
You also said that the blue dots were representing circles, but on your page, we can select 16 objects to get their coordinates, and 8 square-like objects are made out of blue dots.

The program was not designed to handle curved objects (it can only deal with shapes with four corners), so the blue disc has been constructed out of 8 objects, four squares and four non-squares. It is to be regarded as a disc.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/09/2017 01:06:26
They move at a tangent to the blue objects, so they should be contracted in the direction of their motion, but they are stretched instead.
They are not squares, but long rectangles, and they have been contracted into shapes that are still rectangles. When you press the 2 key, the bottom red rectangle displays its rest length, this being twice as long as you see the rectangles in the absolute frame view (key 0).
I think I would have understood faster if you had established that in the beginning, and even faster if you had established that they were squares before getting contracted.

Quote
The ref-frame camera program does not show any kind of stretching or contracting of the latter kind - it only shows the length-contraction of relativity.
OK

Quote
All objects are programmed in with absolute-frame coordinates, so the rectangles are programmed in at half their rest length because they're all moving at 0.866c. When you view from the absolute frame you see them maintain the same amount of contraction wherever they go. When you switch to a different frame (e.g. by typing the 2 key), you will change the lengths of all the objects, but again they will then maintain those lengths so long as you view them using that frame - their lengths don't vary as they move around. A ref-frame camera takes "God view" photos which can be viewed like "God view" video and they are totally free of the kind of delays that cause the kind of distortions you're talking about.
No, but they create a motion-kind of distortion that is not evident to imagine. I finally understood that you wanted us to be able to chose the key we want to use to change frames, while writing the key number in the dialog box. I think I would have understood faster if you would simply have chosen the key yourself,  and tell us to use it to change the frame. I thought we could select one of the red or yellow squares with it, and use it as a frame.

Quote
The program was not designed to handle curved objects (it can only deal with shapes with four corners), so the blue disc has been constructed out of 8 objects, four squares and four non-squares. It is to be regarded as a disc.
OK

I'll use the new information that I have to analyze the simulation again. I think it will now be easier to understand.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/09/2017 20:01:14
The page certainly doesn't have enough explanation on it - in particular, I've always intended to add more information about the sets of objects that can be selected and about how to program in new ones, and it's been useful to get feedback from you about this.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/09/2017 20:36:39
I suspected that you didn't get a lot of feedback from this particular simulation, so I decided to give you some even if didn't understand it. I didn't have time to restudy it yet, I'm studying the JavaScript from your simulation versions of my model. I found a way to reuse the bar sent by a particle at the moment it is hitting the other particle on your third version. Now, I'm trying to apply it to the last one. :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/09/2017 23:02:28
I suspected that you didn't get a lot of feedback from this particular simulation, so I decided to give you some even if didn't understand it.

The pre-programmed objects all relate to discussions on this forum, so they were aimed at people who already understood things that the page itself doesn't explain.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: xersanozgen on 09/10/2017 08:29:20
Method__________        Reference role_______________________Relative role_____________
Classic Mechanics         Local frame or an object                                          Test object
The theory SR                A Moving body (source, local place, observer)    Light ( an identified Photon
LCS  concept                 Most external frame (Space/LCS/Lİght)                  Moving body/ an object