0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: David Cooper on 23/07/2017 22:17:34"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.
There is no conflict. There is one absolute frame "c".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: David Cooper on 23/07/2017 22:17:34Outside 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.
Your interpretation of measurements having a fixed distance for c between frames is the impossible belief.
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.
Google says it is.
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.
Whether you're doing SR or LET, c is not a frame.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: GoC on 24/07/2017 04:17:43Quote from: David Cooper on 23/07/2017 22:17:34"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.QuoteLight 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.QuoteThere is no conflict. There is one absolute frame "c".Whether you're doing SR or LET, c is not a frame.QuoteClocks 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.QuoteEach 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.QuoteIn 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.QuoteIt 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.QuoteYou 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.QuoteNo,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.QuoteI 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.QuoteThe 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.QuoteQuote from: David Cooper on 23/07/2017 22:17:34Outside 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).QuoteYour 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.QuoteNo 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.
Quote from: David Cooper on 24/07/2017 17:53:22Google says it is.Einstein begs to differ. I follow his interpretation over google.
If google gives you a different postulate than Einstein your going with google for the SR interpretation over Einstein's.
c is what creates all of the frames.
You are not following relativity using one frames measuring stick with another frames clock tick rate.
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.
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.
Quote from: David Cooper on 24/07/2017 17:53:22Of 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.
Quote from: David Cooper on 24/07/2017 17:53:22 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.
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.
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.
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?
Or perhaps you could supply the postulates yourself, since you appear to disagree with everyone else as to what they are.
...but is not itself a frame of reference
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.
What do the experts say?https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/
That is just a change in distance and not the speed of light.
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,
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...
Quote from: jeffreyH on 25/07/2017 13:42:48What 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...
Quote from: David Cooper on 24/07/2017 21:38:46If 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.
I want it in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR.
You cannot use your measurements in another frame and claim it to be valid.
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
They are reviewing past experiments. Read the PDF.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 25/07/2017 18:20:16They 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?
So MMX was solved using time dilation and length contraction, and no different than the SR explanation.
QuoteClocks 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)
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.
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 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.
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.
I didn't say anything about the veracity of the information.
You certainly seem to have a bee in you bonnet about me David when I am not actually arguing against you. Hmmm ...