0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dear Janus and Goc,Your SR calculation is correct. I want to repeat for other viewers of this topic:The ship’s speed is 60 % c and it travels toward + x. Two photons (toward +x and –x) is emitted at the moment To = 0 worldsec.We seek the coordinates of these photons according to the ship at the moment Tı =10 worldsec.]The results acoording to the world: (x’ ; t’) world ===> (3 000 000 worldkm; 10worldsec) (x’’ ; t’’) world ===> (-3 000 000worldkm; 10 worldsec)The results according to the ship:(x’ ; t’) ship ===> (1 500 000 shipkm ; 5 shipsec)(x’’ ; t’’) ship ===> ( 6 000 000shipkm ; 20 shipsec)I have never/any objection for these results. And nobody objects these result in accordance with SR mentality.BUT; probably, you may distinguish a contradiction too:How does the clock (in the ship) indicate either 5 shipsec or 20 shipsec simultaneously?How does the shipclock or abstract time of the ship work by two (innumerable for angled positions) different tempos?Is there time contraction in SR (20 shipsec represents time contraction instead of time dilation) The time moment is unique; 10 worldsec, 5 shipsec and 20 shipsec represent the same moment in accordance with the existence of photons.
So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago. Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
Quote from: Janus on 24/04/2017 20:44:30 So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago. Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.) Does this argument (simple example) protect or resque the theory SR?The human perceived that “the Earth is flat” and “the Sun turns around the Earth” for million years.The theory has analyzed the light on a single direction and moreover according to a local object. This attitude is not normal in accordance with methodology. Yes, it is amazing; does anyone discover the flaw on opposite direction? I did not encounter like this fault. And therefore, I wrote a book about this subject (Pseudo Science <Under the protection of mysticism> 2003 and 2008):1- Mysticism likes the brilliant ideas. Mysticism is an archetypal quality of human.2- Human’s cognitive ability is linear and inadequate for universal subjects (especially light).3- The theory SR had neglected to analyze the other directions and the operation step of superpose.4- Already, when a person did not internalize the SR analysis of single direction by the method of active education, he cannot consider new/next steps.5- The theory SR is not a method of therapy or surgical operation that their defects are cropped up immediately. It is exempted from “life anvil”.6- The real reason of the illusion of space-time is to be limited/finited value of light’s velocity; not fix and same value for everything. When the analysis is realized by the base of limited/finited velocity and on LCS; it will be possible without any troubles (I can analyze by this paradigm and I calculated the age of universe)7- General affirmation (due to the power of media) gives an excuse to the person who does not understand the theory. And the objections are underestimated by this present paradigm.8- There are the realization successes of the human on every subjects. In science history we can see the concept of Ad-hoc.9- In science philosophy (that is my other interest), some requirements are not on agenda yet: . The management of mental references. Revising the local postulates according to universal scale by methodology and like a project.10- There is a different word for every nuance in English. But the word “relativity” is a single for the subject; whereas the types of relativity is mentioned by me (genuine relativity; nominal/supposed relativity; momentary/temporary relativity; etc). Probably this situation may restricts someone’s analysis.11- Currently we human remain our traditional habit (that to assign the local object as reference role) 12- The young scientists can understand my objections/clues/arguments. Some academician can find reasonable objection for my football example by carrying the event to space (On the earth the ground became reference frame for the ball, not player; but on space the player can be reference frame for the relative motion of the ball by the reason of effection-reaction. But when he discovered a flaw of my argument; he supposed his answer as a flag and his mind was anchored like a ship. Whereas the concept of effection-reaction is not valid for the light/photon . 13- First and new scientific approaches may have mistakes. Because human mind is linear and nature has complexity. Some wrong opinions may remain for hundred years in accordance with low requirement or utilization.14- The theory SR has other serious defects. For example, in formulas the parameters have units and we require to get provision for these units too. But Lorentz transformations give always 300 000 relativeKm/relativeSec and claims that results are equal to 300 000 referenceKm /referenceSec in numerical application. If the units are changeable, the numerical values never be equal for authentic distance. We must also get active our attention for this point.15- The theory SR had been helpful to revise light kinematics by being a guide hypothesis.
The bottom line is that Relativity is accepted because it works.
Note to xersanozgen: your basic mathematical mistakes and your choice of topics make it clear that you do not understand this topic.
SR is alive and well.
You are confusing the two way speed of light with the one way speed of light in SR. Your in the middle of a ship with a distance of 2. Units do not matter this is relativity. You send a signal simultaneous from the ships observer 1 atto second in both forward and backward while going half the speed of light compared to an observer at rest. The forward signal reaches the front mirror at a distance of 2. The backward signal reaches the mirror in 2/3rds. So there is a 1 1/3rd difference between the two mirrors being synchronized (lets use the term in Gods eye). Now on the return trip the forward signal returns in 2/3rds the length to the middle and the backwards signal takes a distance of 2 to reach the middle. They arrive in the middle as simultaneous to the observer in the middle. This will happen at any speed of the ship. The observer at rest would view them as returning to the center as simultaneous. The same time will have passed for each direction of light.The earth is still revolving around the sun, you will not fall off the earth if you sail to far, SR is alive and well.
What can be else?
“Light clock” convinces many followers. But, we can discuss this mental experiment in-depth like commissar Colombo. Light clock has same tempo for positive/negative going directions because of square of the parameter v. However, the going direction results different tempos in accordance with parallel or perpendicular positions of the mirrors:t’ (parallel) = t / (1 – v^2/c^2) ^1/2 (please attention: It is mentioned the square root of denominator)t’ (perpendicular) = t / (1 – v^2 / c^2) But, would Einstein like this argument?
The Lorentz contraction is just a derivative of Pythagoras caused by motion and viewing an object from a past position in the observers present. Simultaneity of relativity.
As an example, in the twin paradox, one twin is set into motion and when he returns he is younger than his other twin who remained stationary. While they were in motion, we can apply relative velocity, with both references seeing the same thing. Yet in the end, both references do not develop the same final state. This disproves the relative assumption since both do not end the same way.
The reason the traditions developed as they did was because the most important use of SR is inferring the age and speed of the universe; red shift. At the same time, we will never physically get close enough to directly measure any of these distant objects. The idea of an energy balance does not even register since the state of universal relativistic mass and energy can't be verified.
Hello, I have read some of the posts in this thread by the poster, can somebody please explain what he is on about as I can not for some reason decipher what he is on about?Also I have read one sentence from the opp that is correct but for reasons for which he does not understand in which I do .