0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I apologize for the delay. I will get back to you as soon as I can.Thank you,Butch
at 0.866c a clock will from the point of view of a stationary observer tick at half the normal rate, and light being produced by a source in the moving apparatus will also be affected in the same manner.
it would be easier for us to judge the frequency of the light as that removes any Doppler effect complications,
Although this was designed to detect any boost in the speed of light, the addition of the speed of the source and the speed of light, it also indicates there is no lag. That is, the speed of light was not measured to be slower, which would be the case if emission source moved forward in relationship to the point in space it occupied when the light was emitted. I understand your logic, but this is the rule until proved otherwise.
The MM apparatus is moving at 0.866c and we are moving with it...
The MM apparatus is moving at 0.866c and we are stationary,...
You're making exactly the same mistake as you did last time...arm is halved in length,... the length of the perpendicular arm...
If the apparatus is contracted in its direction of travel, you're automatically working with a case where the behaviour of light has to conform to the rules of a frame in which there is no contraction.
You're attacking a position I have never held.
It affects the frequency instead, so if the source is moving towards you it will result in blue shift, whereas if it is moving away it will result in red shift. The point I've been making concerns how you should handle the speed of light when you're working things out from within any particular frame of reference....
This illustrates why an understanding of Lorentz's theory should be considered as essential before people try moving on into exploring SR. All of this should be worked out under a theory which has a preferred frame. Once you've understood all the details of how that works, then you'll understand straight away how the rules have to be applied in SR to make SR work properly.
QuoteThe MM apparatus is moving at 0.866c and we are moving with it...The velocity of the apparatus compared to the velocity of the observer is zero. The velocity of one relative to the other is zero. At the relative velocity of zero there is no relativistic effect and all else is moot.
QuoteThe MM apparatus is moving at 0.866c and we are stationary,...Here it appears that phenomena from one frame crossed into the other frame. Only that which is entirely within the relatively moving frame is a consideration.
No mistake was made. There was no mention of arm length in my last reply.However, the lengths of the arms are one half the length of the corresponding light path in all circumstances without exception. The calculation for light path lengths at the relative velocity .866c is at the end of this reply.Please share the mathematical calculations you used for your comment.
Judged from relative rest for light in the direction of motion length is contracted by the factor .5 and time is slower in the moving frame by the factor of 2. wf=c or .5d/light wave * light wave/2t=c the “light wave” term cancels .5d/2t=c .5d/2t * 2/.5= c * 2/.5 simplify d/t=4c d/light wave * light wave/t=4c or wf=4c
Judged from relative rest for light perpendicular to the direction of motion length is not contracted and time is slower in the moving frame by the factor of 2. wf=c or d/light wave * light wave/2t=c the “light wave” term cancels d/2t=c d/2t * 2= c * 2 simplify d/t=2c d/light wave * light wave/t=2c or wf=2c
QuoteIf the apparatus is contracted in its direction of travel, you're automatically working with a case where the behaviour of light has to conform to the rules of a frame in which there is no contraction.Please share the mathematical calculations for this as well.
QuoteYou're attacking a position I have never held.I never attack a person or an idea. An attack does not promote constructive discourse, is generally counter productive and can easily result in avoidable useless acrimony.
The length of the light path is .5 times the proper length (.5d)
QuoteYou're making exactly the same mistake as you did last time...arm is halved in length,... the length of the perpendicular arm...No mistake was made. There was no mention of arm length in my last reply.However, the lengths of the arms are one half the length of the corresponding light path in all circumstances without exception. The calculation for light path lengths at the relative velocity .866c is at the end of this reply.Please share the mathematical calculations you used for your comment.
QuoteQuoteIf the apparatus is contracted in its direction of travel, you're automatically working with a case where the behaviour of light has to conform to the rules of a frame in which there is no contraction.Please share the mathematical calculations for this as well.You don't seem to have got the key point about how things work, so let me try to explain it more clearly. If you are looking at a system where there is no contraction, you must be stationary in the frame of reference in which the thing you're observing is also stationary. As soon as you're moving relative to the thing you're observing, you're going to see length contraction in the thing you're observing - you and the object are stationary in different frames, so you must treat the object as if it is moving through your frame and you must consider the light to be moving at c through your frame at all times. This means that when you observe the MM apparatus moving through your frame, you will work out that light will take much longer to travel along the contracted arm than it does when going back the other way and you will also work out that for light to get from one end of the uncontracted arm to the other it will have to cover twice the distance through your frame than the length of that arm because the arm is moving through your frame.
You proved my point!!!Light traverses the arm that is in the direction of motion at half the speed that light traverses the arm that is perpendicular to the direction of motion judged from relative rest.
THE PROBLEM IS:The speed of light is constant and the same for all observers yet for this observer at relative rest LIGHT HAS TWO DIFFERENT SPEEDS and both of those speeds are different that the speed of light observed within the relatively moving frame THE THIRD SPEED OF LIGHT in this exercise!!!!
var a=0; b=0; c=0; d=0; f=0.8660254; e=-0.5; h=0.8660254; g=-0.5; y=0.8660254; z=0; zz=0; bc2=1; mms=10; d1t=-6; d1l=-124; d2t=-6; d2l=-144; d3t=-6.5; d3l=-60; d4t=-6.5; d4l=-80; function run() { z+=bc2; if(z<0){z=0; bxc2()} else{ mms+=y; mm.style.left=mms; d1t+=a; d1l+=b; dot1.style.top=d1t; dot1.style.left=d1l; d2t+=c; d2l+=d; dot2.style.top=d2t; dot2.style.left=d2l; d3t+=e; d3l+=f; dot3.style.top=d3t; dot3.style.left=d3l; d4t+=g; d4l+=h; dot4.style.top=d4t; dot4.style.left=d4l; ttec2(); zz=z-79; time.innerHTML=zz}} function ttec2() { if(z==39 && bc2==1){a=-1; c=-1} if(z==39 && bc2==-1){a=0; c=0} if(z==79 && bc2==1){a=0; b=-1; e=0; f=-1} if(z==79 && bc2==-1){a=1; b=0; e=0.5; f=-0.8660254} if(z==112){f=1} if(z==204){b=1; c=1} if(z==329 && bc2==1){c=0; d=1; g=0.5} if(z==329 && bc2==-1){c=-1; d=0; g=0.5} if(z==349 && bc2==1){b=0; d=0} if(z==349 && bc2==-1){b=-1; d=-1} if(z==578 && bc2==1){g=0; h=1} if(z==578 && bc2==-1){g=-0.5; h=-0.8660254} if(z==654 && bc2==1){f=y, h=y} if(z==654 && bc2==-1){f=-1, h=f}}
The take away, you must agree, is that the speed of light in the direction of motion is different than the speed of light perpendicular to the direction of motion judged from relative rest.
You did an impressive job of creating the animation from the mathematics.
That second animation depicts the MMX at relative velocity .866c observed from relative rest.
That second animation shows that observed from relative rest light traverses the arms at 2 different speeds.Please, before you offer further explanation, is the statement above true? Yes or No, then give your explanation, PLEASE.
When you average out the speeds for the two journeys along the horizontal arm, you then get the same speed of light along that arm and back as you do for the journey up and down the other arm. It's only the round trip that really counts because it's impossible to measure the speed of light in just one direction unless you also know which is the preferred frame (and that depends on such a thing existing).
Yes, except that it's three different speeds
Take a look at your animation again.You get the same time in the direction of motion and perpendicular to the direction of motion.However, the lengths are different, therefore, the speeds are different.
Contraction in the direction of motion causes the constant speed of light not to be constant.
The speed of light is only always constant (or giving the appearance of being constant) within the frame in which you're measuring it.
“The speed of light is CONSTANT and the same for ALL observers.” NO EXCEPTIONS!!!That is the mantra.Right?
What you're trying to do is extend its meaning to cases which it simply isn't intended to cover: i.e. those cases where you add c to (or subtract c from) the speed of other objects moving through your frame where you will then necessarily produce values that aren't c.