0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The problem is that many people have difficulty understanding what time is, and Einstein messed badly with their minds.
Indeed - the exchange seems identical to them, but it isn't and it happens more slowly.
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?
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.
While your eyes can be fooled math cannot
A paper on MMX.https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5xA paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r
This system is confusing. I can't upload graphics, but can post links.I test the links to be sure they work.??
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.
How about my animation David, can you see it now?
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.
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.
Quote from: DavidQuoteI 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 RepteuxThen 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.