0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Here, here... and as I also am quite happy with that which I do post, we find ourselves in agreement.
In reverse, this discussion puts forward the notion that within the Michael Morley experiment and those that followed, that light associated with the arm of the interferometer equipment travelling 'in line motion' experiences a 'further slowing' of time due to 'extra' velocity related time dilation considerations. The light, travelling at the speed of light, takes a 'longer' amount of time to travel the arm of the interferometer. Without mathematically taking into consideration the light having travelled in a 'slower' time, it will 'seem' as if the length of the arm has contracted...when in fact it is instead the length of the journey 'time' that has dilated.
Exactly...This discussion is putting forward the notion that there is no mass movement during the gravity wave occurrence.
P.S. Box - I am saying, in this case, that the time slows down causing the appearance of a length contraction, not that the light slows down!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
Quote from: timey on 01/03/2016 17:27:13P.S. Box - I am saying, in this case, that the time slows down causing the appearance of a length contraction, not that the light slows down!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelston–Morley_experimentI think you missed the point, imagine a 30 cm length, imagine light bouncing back and forth between A and B of the length, lets say we observe a frequency of 10 passing B, Now let us imagine we move the clock and we now measure the frequency passing B as 5. Time slowed down to half the rate. NO....... speed slowed down to half the rate, the length of 30cm is still the same and never alters, it is constant. distance travelled = distance travelled in either experiment, rate/d is not equal to rate/d in either experiment.
P.S. Box - I am saying, in this case, that the time slows down causing the appearance of a length contraction, not that the light slows down!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelston–Morley_experiment
Yes box - I get the point.What you are doing is keeping distance and the rate of time constant, at the expense of the speed of light now being variable.What I am doing is keeping the speed of light and distance as constants, and rendering the rate of time as variable,
Yes box - I'm having a perfect cinematic recollection of events... We've been here before. Yes I agree that anything in time after zero is history - but... in an effort to record sequential events or predict future events, that approach to viewing time is next to bloody useless.I see you are no closer to understanding that the frequency of the cycles of a cessium atom is subject to change when exposed to changes in the gravitational field.That these changes in the frequency of the cycles of a cessium atom exposed to changes in the gravitational field are known as time dilation, (although, in the case of this side of the 'rate of time' phenomenon, it should really be called time contraction), and are indeed proven...forming the basis of the GPS system... So... the rate of time is indeed a variable.I'm just suggesting that the rate of time is also variable, in an 'almost' reverse symmetry, for locations of 'space' within changes in the gravitational field, and that lights observed reduction of frequency in a reducing gravitational field, being as light is massless, is reflective of this notion.I don't know where your notion of extraction fits in. Sorry.
There have been 3 or four experiments that have validated the Lorentz contraction but the one I like best is the Heavy ion experiment.From Wikipedia under: [Lorentz Contraction]"Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat discs when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered."My personal comments follow:As the heavy ion reaches these near light speeds, it's frontal area compacts as it's length contracts leading to the observed increased nucleon density. These observations provide sufficient evidence that Length Contraction is a reality and not just a time dependent function of this phenomenon. I would recommend everyone involved in this thread check out the full explanation prepared for everyone at Wikipedia.regards...........................Ethos
I do not know how many times the beam of light is revolved around the 4km distance before the interference patterns are measured, therefore I do not understand how much 'distance' the light in the tubes has travelled before detecting from the interference patterns, the distance of one proton as a 'length' contraction.
What I do know is that the speed of the gravity wave measured in a straight line between experiments, exceeded the speed of light by 6.37 ms?... or thereabouts...
The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2016 08:16:35 The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.Ignoring the experimental results given here and maintaining your own biased view of reality proves one thing to me. And this would be that you're really not interested in the scientific method and therefore, content to pick and choose your facts based only on those things which please your personal sensibilities. Until you learn to take these professional experiments, preformed by experts BTW, into consideration and allow that information to be part of your equation, your quest to learn about physics will suffer greatly. But I wish you the best Mr. Box, keep digging into these questions and you may find something new.regards................................Ethos