Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: GoC on 02/05/2017 11:54:06

Title: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 02/05/2017 11:54:06
David to continue our conversation on our own thread from the "invariant speed of light" topic.

SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular. You claim science believes time is a dimension. That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

GR is a dilation of Aether spin c particles. So energy is diluted and the wave created has a lower frequency. mass is expanded physically in GR. Mass is expanded visually in SR. That is the equivalence between GR and SR where g=a.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/05/2017 22:17:04
SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular.

That needs a diagram. I can't see how light chasing a mirror has to hit it at 30 degrees.

Quote
You claim science believes time is a dimension.

I do no such thing. SR is a model which uses a time dimension. Anything that has no time dimension is not SR. Your model, for example, is not SR, but a rival theory of relativity.

Quote
That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?

Time in SR is a dimension. In your theory, it isn't, so in discussing your model it would be wrong to refer to your model's kind of time as a dimension, just as in LET (Lorentz Ether Theory - the theory which I rate the highest) time isn't a dimension.

Quote
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

Again that needs a diagram before anyone will be able to make sense of it.

From the other thread:-

Quote
Quote
You said there is no time dimension, so how do you now have a time dimension that's a dimension of size?
Aether Particles spin and Mass dilates the Aether particles so energy density decreases in the presents of mass. The measuring stick increases in size to measure a different mile than less dilated mass. You always measure the same speed of light in both GR dilation and SR visual increase in length. The hypotenuse of SR and the dilation of GR has equivalence in Euclidean space.

There is no visual increase in length - the opposite should occur.

Quote
2d complimentary spin on one sheet than a 90 degree at a 45 degree offset for the next sheet. Axils cannot be the same between sheets and this allows flex. The third sheet is the same as the first. The funny thing it would look like a string vibrating. The electron moves as a rotation around a half string. Energy pushes the electron along. One atom dilates space energy. The electron moves out of the proton at the rotation motion of the speed of light. Space becomes less dilated and the friction with energy curves the electron back to the proton where another electron moves out to cycle. There is one more negatron than positron in protons and neutrons are equal matter to antimatter electrons. Each spin state is complimentary when they pass for less resistance keeping the proton together. Gravity is mass attracted to the most dilated space of least resistance.

Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 03/05/2017 11:59:35

Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?

I think for myself and do not trust others to do my subjective interpretations. I never thought of my interpretation as a rival. Reading Einstein's papers gave me the interpretation I have about relativity.
What you want is the discussion on the reflection of light. OK. Lets look at light coming from the opposite direction of travel to the meter stick. Light hits the front of the stick while the stick is going half the speed of light. The light travels down the stick while the back of the stick moves towards the light for reflection. So the light reflects off of 2/3rds of the stick. So the contraction in this case is 2/3rds length but remains physically 1 meter long. Because of the finite speed of a photon (whatever you believe to be a photon) non can move fast enough to cover the whole meter stick.

Now lets look at light following that same stick. Light reaches the back of the meter stick. The front is still moving forward. The reflective light follows the meter stick for two whole lengths of the stick. So the meter stick becomes two meters long for the view while the meter stick is only one meter long.

Clocks oriented in any angle to vector velocity will tick at the same rate. Both mechanical (electrons) and light clocks. So you need to be more specific in what you are asking. There is no physical contraction in SR. Where would you get such an idea? 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/05/2017 18:25:32
If you don't have a proper way of handling length-contraction, your theory is dead in the water - it cannot simply be written off as a visual effect.

Imagine a large blue circular ring in space, neither moving nor rotating. Around this ring, we will place a second ring made from eight rectangular objects, each touching the one ahead and the one behind. The rectangles are either yellow or red (four of each colour), alternating between one colour and the other as you look from one rectangle to the next around the ring. I will point you to a diagram that's very similar to this in a moment, but it has a couple of differences, one of which is that the rectangles aren't stationary in the diagram. So, to make it more like the diagram, we now have to move the ring of yellow and red triangles around the blue ring, speeding them up until they're all moving at 86.7%c around the blue ring, thereby length-contracting them to half their rest length. We now see that the length-contraction is actual - there are now such big gaps between the rectangles that we could fit twice as many rectangles into the same space. If the length-contraction was just an illusion, each rectangle would continue to touch the one ahead and the one behind it, but that doesn't happen in the real universe - they really do contract to half their rest length at 0.867c.

Here's the diagram. When you get there you'll need to click on the "Load example objects" button, then type "d" to load the fourth set of example objects, then the Return key to make them appear. http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/ref-frame-camera.htm

You should now see the blue ring with the eight rectangles around its edge (although these items are only shown using a few dots here and there, the rectangles only having four dots each to mark the corners - I had to draw them this way due to the severe limitations of JavaScript (the more dots that I use, the slower the program runs, so it has to be kept minimal). You should imagine the blue ring as a complete ring - don't pay any attention to the distance between the blue dots round the circumference of that ring as I simply placed a few wherever it was easiest to calculate their positions).

There's another difference with the diagram though, because the program hasn't been designed to allow objects to follow curved paths, so when you run it by pressing the "s" key, the rectangles all move on tangents to the blue ring instead, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that if they were to go round the blue ring instead, they would be length-contracted to the same extent. Assuming you're accessing this on a proper computer with a keyboard, if you press "d" you can change their direction of travel, and pressing "s" toggles between moving them and freezing the action. (If you're using a tablet, hopefully the buttons will serve the same job, but that will involve scrolling up to them and then going back down to see the action.)

To see the length of one of the rectangles without length-contraction acting on it, you can switch to a frame of reference in which it's stationary. Different frames have been assigned to number keys, so if you press "1" you get the original frame, while "2" and "3" take you to other frames where in each case one of the red rectangles will be stationary, except that the "camera" always follows the blue ring to keep it central, so the stationary rectangle will move across the screen. (If you don't have a keyboard, you'll have to use the "Set Frame velocity" button instead, typing in values such as 0.866 for X and 0 for Y.)

All of that should give you an idea of what your theory needs to account for if it's to match up with what the universe does. In the LET model, the length-contraction is absolutely real. In the SR model, the length contraction is real for the frame of reference chosen, but some of its actual length has been hidden by a trick that uses the time dimension. LET can fit 16 of those rectangles into the space around the blue ring if they are all moving at 0.866c, and each of those rectangles would be touching the one ahead and the one behind. SR can also fit 16 of those rectangles around the blue ring by playing games with the timing as to where the back end of each rectangle is relative to the front end, and that's only possible with a Spacetime model (with a time dimension). Your theory doesn't have a time dimension, so if it doesn't have length-contraction either, you've got a major problem as the eight rectangles will remain in contact with each other at all speeds of travel around the blue ring.

Given that your theory can't handle that, I have to wonder what else it can't handle. You need to study relativity in a lot more detail to find out what the universe requires a theory to account for, and then you need to study SR in sufficient depth to understand what it asserts. As it stands, you keep defending SR on the basis that your theory (which doesn't fit the facts) has some things in common with SR, but you've completely failed to notice the chasm of incompatibility between SR and your own theory.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 04/05/2017 11:57:54
David

   We view things differently. The subjective view of contraction being real has no real basis in main streams view of nothing in space for resistance to mass. Your model and math was chosen for contraction. In my model there is no contraction physically in SR. But there is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.

There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction. The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light. The light reflection follows the 30 degree angle. Cos 30 = 0.866025 and this is the percentage 86.6% of a second at rest. The 30 degree angle contracts the view to 86.6% of its visual length. Simple Euclidean geometry. The subjective view of perpendicular is impossible following relativity postulates in Euclidian space.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 04/05/2017 19:33:22
Quote
Your model and math was chosen for contraction. In my model there is no contraction physically in SR.

You aren't doing SR - you're doing something radically different, and it fails to describe the real universe. Any model that is meant to match up to the real universe has to be able to handle that contraction.

Quote
But there is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.

What the reference frame camera program shows is the positions of all objects at a single moment of time according to the clock of a selected frame of reference, but there's nothing wrong with that - it represents what must actually be happening in the real universe rather than giving a picture distorted by communication delays. A model that can handle objects contracting to half their rest length at 0.866c as they circle a ring such that twice as many can fit in the same space as the can at rest is a model that matches up to the real universe, whereas a model that can't handle that does not. The first thing that you should be trying to account for with your model is MMX. Look at the first two interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html again to see what happens if you don't length-contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it's only in the second version that you can get the null result that the real experiment generates.

Quote
There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction.

If all the action is taking place on a plane that's set perpendicular to the direction you're looking in, the further away you are from that action, the closer your view gets to the "God view" (which is the view used in the interactive diagrams and simulations). Viewed from far enough away, the difference between what you see and the "God view" becomes so small as to become irrelevant, the Doppler effect being as good as removed from it. You don't have to go to such extremes though as you can take photographs of the action from close to with each pixel right up against whatever it's photographing, which is the idea that my reference frame camera is based on - you just have to synchronise all the pixel clocks for a specific frame of reference and you are taking "God view" pictures.

Quote
The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

The Doppler effect is something that can be corrected for to provide the "God view", so it isn't the issue you imagine it to be - it merely complicates the calculations when you're trying to view things from unfavourable locations. It's a massive mistake to imagine that by viewing things from unfavourable positions you can avoid the need for length-contraction in a theory.

Quote
Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light.

When you say perpendicular, do you actually mean parallel? What you're describing though sounds very similar to the interactive diagrams I've used for the MMX, so if you can't produce diagrams of your own, why not just refer to mine and switch the numbers around to match (I use a speed of 0.867c instead of 0.5c, leading to 60 degree angles where you have 30 and 30 where you have 60, and where I have length-contraction to 0.5, you should have it to 0.867).

The big issue for you to deal with first though is the length-contraction which you claim not to need, so that means your model fits the first of the two interactive diagrams (which doesn't match up to the real universe) rather than the second interactive diagram (which SR and LET both match up to). What is your fix for this? Do you deny the null result of MMX or do you want to maintain that the length-contraction is imaginary and that the Doppler effect has a role in producing the null result instead? The Doppler effect can confuse things where one-way trips are involved, but the MMX uses light on round trips where they go from one mirror to another and back again, and if you don't length-contract an arm that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, it must take longer for light to complete the round trip on that path than it takes on the other arm, which means there shouldn't be a null result - the Doppler effect has no impact on the result of this experiment whatsoever.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 05/05/2017 11:59:09
You aren't doing SR - you're doing something radically different, and it fails to describe the real universe. Any model that is meant to match up to the real universe has to be able to handle that contraction.
Of course. But it is not physical contraction only visual because of the finite speed of light. We can never view an object where it resides in space. There is no perpendicular view only an angle different from perpendicular. It is the angle of view that causes contraction of view. I am beginning to understand your subjective training in relativity. Your belief in contraction as physical is not a Euclidean understanding. I can explain why its only visual using plane geometry. A physical contraction is impossible in relativity postulates. The postulate light being independent of the source contracts the view by angle. If there is also a physical contraction it would not follow observations.

There is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.
Quote
What the reference frame camera program shows is the positions of all objects at a single moment of time according to the clock of a selected frame of reference, but there's nothing wrong with that - it represents what must actually be happening in the real universe rather than giving a picture distorted by communication delays. A model that can handle objects contracting to half their rest length at 0.866c as they circle a ring such that twice as many can fit in the same space as the can at rest is a model that matches up to the real universe, whereas a model that can't handle that does not. The first thing that you should be trying to account for with your model is MMX. Look at the first two interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html again to see what happens if you don't length-contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it's only in the second version that you can get the null result that the real experiment generates.
There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction.

Quote
If all the action is taking place on a plane that's set perpendicular to the direction you're looking in, the further away you are from that action, the closer your view gets to the "God view" (which is the view used in the interactive diagrams and simulations). Viewed from far enough away, the difference between what you see and the "God view" becomes so small as to become irrelevant, the Doppler effect being as good as removed from it. You don't have to go to such extremes though as you can take photographs of the action from close to with each pixel right up against whatever it's photographing, which is the idea that my reference frame camera is based on - you just have to synchronise all the pixel clocks for a specific frame of reference and you are taking "God view" pictures.

The God's view you are referring to is the real position of an object which in relativistic view of finite speed of light is impossible. Your program cannot show a view other than position being the same as the view as perpendicular in the same frame. The same frame does not have a perpendicular view In my SR following the postulates properly.

The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.
Quote
The Doppler effect is something that can be corrected for to provide the "God view", so it isn't the issue you imagine it to be - it merely complicates the calculations when you're trying to view things from unfavourable locations. It's a massive mistake to imagine that by viewing things from unfavourable positions you can avoid the need for length-contraction in a theory.
No, God's view allows a perpendicular view the relativity postulates do not. This is a simple issue. What is the problem?

Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light.
Quote
When you say perpendicular, do you actually mean parallel? What you're describing though sounds very similar to the interactive diagrams I've used for the MMX, so if you can't produce diagrams of your own, why not just refer to mine and switch the numbers around to match (I use a speed of 0.867c instead of 0.5c, leading to 60 degree angles where you have 30 and 30 where you have 60, and where I have length-contraction to 0.5, you should have it to 0.867).
Half the speed of light is simple to understand the hypotenuse is the angle between parallel mirrors that light takes through space. ).866 causes a clock to tick at half the tick rate of an observer at rest. Got to go to work

Quote
The big issue for you to deal with first though is the length-contraction which you claim not to need,
Not true it is a visual length contraction. The reason is simple Euclidean plane Geometry and relativity. There is no perpendicular view even in the same frame. The view is a different angle that cause a contraction of view.

Quote
so that means your model fits the first of the two interactive diagrams (which doesn't match up to the real universe) rather than the second interactive diagram (which SR and LET both match up to). What is your fix for this?
Show you relativity postulates cause contraction of view and if you contracted them a second time physically they would no longer represent the world view.

Quote
Do you deny the null result of MMX or do you want to maintain that the length-contraction is imaginary and that the Doppler effect has a role in producing the null result instead?
The Doppler only sets the angle of view. What you believe to be perpendicular when you set the mirrors are self adjusting when you test the angle with light. Of course you get a null result. The two way distance for light with velocity in any direction will always be the same in Euclidean Space. It was main streams expectation of the experiment where light would be affected by direction that was incorrect. Its the same as clocks tick the same in any angle to velocity.
Quote
The Doppler effect can confuse things where one-way trips are involved, but the MMX uses light on round trips where they go from one mirror to another and back again, and if you don't length-contract an arm that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, it must take longer for light to complete the round trip on that path than it takes on the other arm, which means there shouldn't be a null result - the Doppler effect has no impact on the result of this experiment whatsoever.
You are correct about what should be with your understanding of no contraction. That is not my understanding. The Doppler has little affect in the clock. It is the angle of light with vector velocity that slows the clock using light as independent of the source. Why do you have a block there?

You have to unlearn your subjective interpretation to follow relativity and the finite speed of light by the angles created with velocity changing the angle of view.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/05/2017 18:53:32
But it is not physical contraction only visual because of the finite speed of light. We can never view an object where it resides in space. There is no perpendicular view only an angle different from perpendicular. It is the angle of view that causes contraction of view.

As I've already told you, the further away you view the action from (if it's happening on a plane perpendicular to the direction you're looking at it from), the closer you get to seeing the "God view", and you can easily get to the point where you see something so close to the "God view" that you can't measure the difference between the two. I have also pointed out to you that when things form a ring that's going round in a circle, they contract in length and allow more objects to be fitted into that ring, so it is not something you can write off as just a visual effect - the contraction is actual. I have also pointed out to you that MMX can't produce a null result without actual contraction.

Quote
I am beginning to understand your subjective training in relativity.

I very much doubt that.

Quote
Your belief in contraction as physical is not a Euclidean understanding. I can explain why its only visual using plane geometry. A physical contraction is impossible in relativity postulates. The postulate light being independent of the source contracts the view by angle. If there is also a physical contraction it would not follow observations.

That is not an adequate explanation, indicating a failure of understanding. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and watch the red blobs of light moving across the screen. Click the "Hide" button and watch the speed of the dots carefully - they travel at the same speed across the screen throughout (ignoring the times when they're stuck in the laser or detector at the start and finish of the experiment). In the first of these interactive diagrams we can see very clearly what happens if you don't contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it takes longer to complete the round trip along that arm than the light takes to do the round trip on the other arm, and that is not a null result. It is only when actual length-contraction is introduced that we get the null result. If you were viewing the action from close to with the Doppler effect warping the picture, you would see something very different from the "God view" with the lengths being harder to measure, but if you were viewing from a long way off, the Doppler effect would diminish and the view would get closer and closer to the "God view" as you look from further away, revealing the length-contraction clearly, but even if you were viewing from close to, you could adjust your measurements to take it into account in order to calculate the actual lengths, at which point you would produce measurements that show up the length contraction.

The most important thing for you to understand here though is this: if you still refuse to accept that there is length-contraction involved in this, you need light to complete both round trips in the same length of time, and that requires your light to exceed the speed of light when moving along the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus. Until you understand this, you haven't grasped the most fundamental issue in relativity. The contraction cannot be explained away as a visual effect.

Quote
There is a visual contraction by angle of view.

If you're observing an object moving away from you, there is a visual contraction caused by the delay in seeing the leading end of the object compared with the trailing end, but if you're observing that object moving towards you, there's a visual lengthening caused by the delay in seeing the trailing end compared with the leading end. If you average these out, you get the true length, and that will show up the actual length-contraction of the object. Your misunderstanding of relativity comes from your assumption that the first sentence of this paragraph is the explanation for length-contraction, but it has nothing to do with it - it is a separate visual contraction which has nothing to do with relativity.

Quote
The God's view you are referring to is the real position of an object which in relativistic view of finite speed of light is impossible.

The "God view" represents what the universe must actually be doing rather than what we see with distortions caused by communication delays, so it is a better representation than the views we see. But as I've already said, we can calculate the "God view" from our direct view, and if we view from far away we can see something that would in a photo look identical to a "God view" photo, the differences being too small to show up once you're beyond a certain distance (related to the photo resolution).

Quote
Your program cannot show a view other than position being the same as the view as perpendicular in the same frame. The same frame does not have a perpendicular view In my SR following the postulates properly.

If I programmed it to show the scene from a finite distance far enough away from the action, it would display everything exactly the same way it does now (because the communication distances between the objcets being viewed and the camera would be near identical - you should do a little maths on this to check how small the differences are and to see how they tend towards zero as you move the camera further away), so you need to abandon your failed argument.

If I had time to write a new version of the program to show a close-up view in which delays have a role, all that would do is hide the true lengths by showing warped representations of them. To calculate the true lengths you would then have to convert the measurements to remove the distortions from them, at which point you'd produce the "God view" measurements and discover that the length-contraction has to be actual rather than visual.

Quote
The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

The Doppler effect is something you need to eliminate from your measurements before you can start measuring the relativistic effects. How long is it going to take before the penny drops? You have completely misunderstood what relativity is about because you've mistaken some aspects of the Doppler effect for relativity, and you've only half understood the visual distortions even then, failing to notice that these distortions make things look longer just as often as they make things look shorter.

Quote
No, God's view allows a perpendicular view the relativity postulates do not. This is a simple issue. What is the problem?

It is indeed a simple issue - the "God view" is a representation of the actuality with all the visual distortions removed from it, and any length-contraction in the "God view" represents actual length-contraction which cannot be written off as visual distortion. Not allowing actual length-contraction either requires you to have light going faster than c or to have MMX not produce a null result, either of which takes you into a universe that isn't the one we live in.

Quote
Half the speed of light is simple to understand the hypotenuse is the angle between parallel mirrors that light takes through space. ).866 causes a clock to tick at half the tick rate of an observer at rest.

If your mirrors are set up parallel to the direction they're moving in rather than perpendicular to that direction, then your numbers make sense, but if you aren't going to provide diagrams you need to work harder to get your wording right.

Quote
Show you relativity postulates cause contraction of view and if you contracted them a second time physically they would no longer represent the world view.

But your visual contractions become visual lengthenings when viewed from the other end, averaging out at no contraction at all. When actual length-contraction is applied, the correct numbers are generated.

Quote
The Doppler only sets the angle of view. What you believe to be perpendicular when you set the mirrors are self adjusting when you test the angle with light. Of course you get a null result. The two way distance for light with velocity in any direction will always be the same in Euclidean Space. It was main streams expectation of the experiment where light would be affected by direction that was incorrect. Its the same as clocks tick the same in any angle to velocity.

If what you're doing with your mirrors is having light travel between them on a zigzag path as the mirrors move along (like the vertical arm of the MMX in my diagrams), you should generate the right numbers without needing length-contraction. If you're failing to do the same experiment though with the mirrors set up like on the horizontal arm, then you're missing the important part of the action where length-contraction has to be brought in.

Quote
The Doppler has little affect in the clock. It is the angle of light with vector velocity that slows the clock using light as independent of the source. Why do you have a block there?

Use a light clock and align it with the direction of travel of that clock through space - then you'll find that length-contracting it is essential.

Quote
You have to unlearn your subjective interpretation to follow relativity and the finite speed of light by the angles created with velocity changing the angle of view.

I can't correct your misunderstanding of relativity by breaking my understanding of it. Get some paper, a pencil, a ruler and a calculator and do some work on the idea of a light clock in which the light moves between two mirrors on a path that's aligned with the direction of travel of the light clock. If you do that correctly, you will find that actual length-contraction has to be brought up to make it tick at the same rate as a light clock set up perpendicular to it. (You shouldn't need to do that though as I've already done the work on that and pointed you to it - my interactive diagrams of the MMX cover the same ground and show you why failure to contract one of the arms produces results incompatible with our universe, although you're refusal to accept the validity of the "God view" as a representation of reality with all the visual distortions caused by delays removed is not going to do you any favours.)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 06/05/2017 14:03:08
We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed.

Observer affect.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 06/05/2017 14:05:48
David to continue our conversation on our own thread from the "invariant speed of light" topic.

SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular. You claim science believes time is a dimension. That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

GR is a dilation of Aether spin c particles. So energy is diluted and the wave created has a lower frequency. mass is expanded physically in GR. Mass is expanded visually in SR. That is the equivalence between GR and SR where g=a.
As  for the rest, the entire event you just explained happens in the present , the background of space in your entire thought is always present.
Mirrors , zig zagging c etc, all subjective garbage.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 06/05/2017 14:15:03
David

The subjective view of contraction being real has no real basis in main streams view of nothing in space for resistance to mass.

Correct, the distance of near angle is shorter than the distance of far angle for the light to travel.  Molecules do not compress together contracting physical length it would oblate.

The contraction in length contraction is the contraction of geometrical points not of space itself or the object in motion.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 06/05/2017 14:45:20
Quote
I can't correct your misunderstanding of relativity by breaking my understanding of it.
So you judge the lack of understanding is in my court. That fine. I understand your position and found it to be illogical to be physical contraction. I also found visual contraction to be necessary with the finite speed of light using the relativity postulates. I understand you have to ignore facts that are inconsistent with your understanding (beliefs). There lies the problem'

Our issue so far is you believe length contraction is physical and I believe it to be visual only. Now.

1. You created a visual example of your belief in physical contraction. You put in the program the conditions of relativity measurements to try and prove your hypothesis. That is just circular reasoning and not proof of physical contraction. You accept that as proof and your mind is made up. Fine.
2. By relativity it is only length contraction and not width contraction. So lets look at that and what we know about light clocks. So if you orient a clocks mirrors 180 degrees with the length contraction will shorten the mirrors fully for the velocity and tick faster. When we orient the mirrors 90 degrees we don't have width contraction so the length is greater for a slower tick rate. This does not happen in the real world. Clocks tick at the same rate no matter what the orientation. So your understanding fails real world observations. Try your program with mirrors and physical length contraction using light being constant. Physical contraction is not relativity of view.

Here is my interpretation:
We have the parallel mirrors going through space with fixed space positions that mass travels through. All fixed space positions have energy c as rotation of grid particles of special complimentary spins that actually move the electrons in a rotation like DNA (which is possibly why life was created). Even religionists can claim we were created from the body of God. Sorry I digress.

Try and follow my reasoning using energy c of motion for time (QM) to create relativity. Follow the postulates of relativity, c being constant and light being independent of the source. Your issue is with the source having a fixed position in space and mass. Your understanding is just a fixed position in mass. This allows you to believe in perpendicular light with velocity. That is not relativity! That is just a subjective interpretation of what you were taught by lesser minds not able to follow relativity mechanically only mathematically. So lets look at Euclidean geometry as it relates to Relativity. My example is my best effort to explain visual contraction. Try to follow but if you cannot I will understand. I visualize in my mind not needing paper.

We have a ship going half the speed of light as it relates to a observer at rest. The observer at rest has the Gods view of light moving through space. The ship has mirrors 90 degrees to vector velocity. This would be the same as a clock oriented 90 degrees. On the ship you would believe light is going perpendicular at half the speed of light. From the observer at rest (Gods view) you watch the light traveling at a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors. Your understanding is both views are equivalent. Not true that understanding is illogical. Now the observer at rest observes the hypotenuse (Gods view) and can measure the extra distance light has to travel between mirrors. So lets do a little math. Cos 30 = 0.866075 vs. the observers view of the perpendicular distance being 1 as a ratio of distance. So the tick rate of a clock would be slowed by 13.3025%. Same as the Lorentz contraction you claim to be physical. The distance for light is 1.133025 vs. 1 for the observer at rest. So we have the clocks geometry following relativity. No lets look at the contraction of view. Remember the Gods eye view? On board the ship the view of everything is 30 degrees off of 90 degrees because the image is from the past position. Here is another difficult point to understand. We have a measuring tape on the side of the ship. You are still traveling at half the speed of light. The front of the measuring sticks reflected light reaches you while the back of the measuring sticks reflection is still traveling towards you. You observe a longer measuring stick. Your measuring stick always matches the length of your ship and measures the same speed of light in a vacuum. Even though the distances of light are different.


I cannot control what you believe only you have that ability. We all have fool control of our beliefs
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/05/2017 21:48:35
I'm going to give this one last go, and then I'll have to give up as I have other demands on my time. You're still not doing relativity because you have never grasped one of its key fundamentals, so I have built a really simple thought experiment for you to work with which should force you to recognise your error.

Imagine that you're standing at one end of a table. Now imagine a straight line down the middle of the table running from your end to the far end of the table. This line divides the table into two halves (lengthways). To either side of this line, we will lay an oval railway track (that's two oval railway tracks, one on one side of the table and one on the other), each oval being the same shape as is used for the running tracks (in athletics). Each of these railway tracks has one of its long straight edges running directly alongside the imaginary line down the middle of the table. On the imaginary line, between the two oval tracks we will build a railway platform which stretches for the same distance as the length of the straight sections of the railway tracks beside it, so we have a straight stretch of railway track on either side of the platform. The platform is a metre long. On each track we will put a train right next to the platform, and both of these trains are a metre long. The ends of the trains are right next to the ends of the platform, so we can see at a glance that both trains and platform are the same length as each other.

Now lets get our trains moving round their oval tracks, accelerating them up to 0.867c before allowing them to settle at that speed for a little while so as to iron out any temporary compression or stretch caused by the way the acceleration was applied - we don't want that to interfere with our measurements of their length because such compression or stretching due to acceleration has nothing to do with relativity and must not be mixed up in it. Both trains are now moving clockwise round their track at a constant 0.866c, and they always pass the platform in opposite directions. If length-contraction is actual, these trains will now be 50cm long, but if length-contraction is merely a visual effect, they will still be 1m long. On every lap, the middles of each train always pass each other exactly when they reach the midpoint of the platform.

Let's now label a few points on the platform. The nearest end of the platform to you is called A, while the furthest point away from you is called E. Those points mark the two ends of the platform. The midpoint of the platform is called C, and the points halfway between the midpoint and the ends are called B and D, with B being half way between A and C while D is half way between C and E. We also need names for our trains, so lets call the one on the left L and the one on the right R.

SR and LET both say that because the trains are length-contracted to half their rest length at this speed, the front of train R and tail of train L will pass each other on each lap at point D, while the tail of train R and front of train L will pass each other at point B. Your model maintains that the front of R and tail of L pass each other at point E instead, while the tail of R and front of L meet up at point A. That is a major difference between SR and your faulty version of "SR". I will now show you why SR and LET both disagree with your faulty "SR".

Firstly, what do the trains look like when they're passing each other as viewed from where you're standing? At these times, you'll always see train R moving away from you, so it takes longer for the light from the front end of the train to reach you than the light from the tail end, and that means you'll see this train looking much shorter than it would if light travelled infinitely fast. In the same way, you'll see train L coming towards you, so it takes longer for the light from the tail end to reach you than the light from the front end, and that means you will see this train looking much longer than you would if light travelled infinitely fast. This apparent shortening and lengthening has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

Now I want you to relocate. I want you to hover directly over the middle of the table to look down on it instead of looking along from one end. Now what do you see? When the midpoints of the trains pass each other (at the midpoint of the platform), how far away from you are the front ends and tail ends of the trains? The answer is that these four points (the ends of the trains) are all exactly the same distance away from you (regardless of whichever altitude you decided to hover at), so the light from them reaches your eyes at the same time. This means you will see not see any shortening or lengthening of the trains caused by visual distortions. If you are capable of understanding that, you should not be capable of failing to recognise that the apparent shortenings and lengthenings from your previous viewpoint at the end of the table were visual illusions which hide real lengths from you, and that they are visual illusions which don't show up from your new viewpoint over the table. Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.

I remind you that SR and LET both say that when the midpoints of the trains pass each other at the midpoint of the platform, the ends of the trains are at points B and D, and that's what you'll see from your new position directly over the middle of the table. But you continue to disagree with SR and LET, claiming instead that SR would put the ends of the trains at points A and E at that moment. So, how can we settle the matter of whether the trains are really contracted or not? We need to look at how fast light can move along the moving trains.

Let's build a light clock into each train, each aligned so that when the train is at rest the light has to travel from the tail end of one carriage to the front end of that carriage and back again. Each carriage is 10cm long, so when the trains are at rest the light must move 20cm for each tick of the clock. We will keep an identical light clock on the platform. The speed the light travels at in the light clocks on the trains is never allowed to go faster than the light in the platform's light clock - clearly if it could go faster, it would be possible for the platform's light clock to tick faster by sending it's light forwards inside one of the trains at a higher speed than it can go at on the platform, but that's clearly breaking the laws of physics as it would allow for superluminal communication.

So, how well does your model handle this? The big question you need to ask yourself is this: how far will the trains move before light can get from the tail end of a carriage to its front end to complete half a tick? How far has that light actually travelled relative to the platform by the time it's caught up with the front end of the carriage which is racing away from it at 0.87c? This is one of the very first things you should have done when you began to study relativity, but you clearly didn't bother.

The train (and we only need to consider one train from now on) is moving at 0.867c, a speed which means that its clock should tick half as often as the platform's clock. Let's imagine that the light is sent out from the tail end of the carriage at the same moment as from the light clock on the platform and that the locations of these two events are adjacent. The two light pulses are therefore moving along side by side, one over the platform and one inside the train. When the light in the platform clock has travelled 10 cm it hits the mirror at the far end of its light clock and begins its journey back again. At this point, the train has moved 8.67cm along the track while the pulse of light in the carriage has moved a full 10cm, starting from 10cm behind the front of the carriage, which means the light pulse in its clock has only managed to move 1.33cm closer to the its mirror at the front of the carriage and still has 8.67cm to make up, which you should see straight away is going to take it a heck of a long time.

Our platform clock completes its tick when the light has travelled 10cm back the way, doing a total of 20cm. By this point, our train has moved another 8.67cm along the track and the light pulse inside it has made another 1.33cm of progress through its carriage towards its mirror. Let's allow the platform clock to tick again, because we know that it should tick twice for every tick of the train's clock. That means our train will move another two lots of 8.67cm along the track. In total then, our carriage has moved 34.6cm since the pulse of light was generated and the light in its light clock has moved 40cm, and given that it started 10cm behind the front of the carriage, is is still 4.6cm short of reaching the mirror which it needs to catch up with before it can turn round and go back. But the light clock on the platform has now ticked twice, so the light pulse in the train should have hit the mirror and returned to the back of the carriage too by this time, and yet it manifestly cannot have done so. How long will it actually take to complete a tick then? By the time the light clock on the platform has completed a third tick, our light pulse in the train's light clock has still not reached the mirror at the front of its carriage - it has gained on it by another two lots of 1.33cm but is still 2cm short of the mirror! (The light has moved 60cm and the train has moved 52cm.)

The platform's clock gets to 3.5 ticks and the light pulse in the train's clock is another 1.33cm closer to the mirror at the front of the carriage, and even now it still hasn't caught it! The light pulse in the train only reaches its mirror when the platform's clock has notched up 3.723 ticks, and then it turns around at last. The light pulse now races back the other way as the back end of the carriage races towards it (the light having to cover a little more than 5cm relative to the platform while the back of the carriage covers a little less than 5cm), and they meet very quickly this time - the train's clock completes its first tick when the platform's clock completes its fourth. That is twice as much time dilation as there should be. To get the correct time dilation you need to length-contract the train to half its rest length.

If you can't get this stuff now after all the help I've given you, then there's probably no hope for you - you will never get up to speed with relativity, but I can't tell how stuck in the mud you are - maybe, just maybe, you'll have sufficient intelligence to extract yourself from your predicament. In my experience, very few people ever do, but you might be an exception, so I wish you well. Good luck, but for pity's sake, please do the maths to test your beliefs properly.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 07/05/2017 02:31:32





Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.
Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/05/2017 15:18:58

If you can't get this stuff now after all the help I've given you, then there's probably no hope for you - you will never get up to speed with relativity, but I can't tell how stuck in the mud you are - maybe, just maybe, you'll have sufficient intelligence to extract yourself from your predicament. In my experience, very few people ever do, but you might be an exception, so I wish you well. Good luck, but for pity's sake, please do the maths to test your beliefs properly.

I understand main streams belief in physical contraction. I understand the math that is used. I did not understand the issue with dimension of time as you described it. That understanding of time is just foolish. Unfortunately the training of linear thinkers which makes one good at math rarely have the more abstract flexibility and tend to ignore issues that are inconsistent with their own understanding. And you were correct again apparently my understanding is not the same as main stream's. I agree with all observations and postulates of relativity. Even that there is no preferred frame because no frame is valid. All frames are equally valid because none are a valid representation of an objects positions.

Your busy I am busy but this is interesting to me so I will devote some time.

Small steps. You ignored my example and made one of your own. Here is one inconsistent with physical contraction of length. You cannot get around this observation with your belief in physical contraction. If you can find a way around it I will have to reconsider physical length contraction. I discarded physical contraction because of this observation.

All light clocks tick at the same rate independent of their orientation. Using the postulate light being independent of the source and light is constant lets look at orientation.

When mirrors are aligned with the direction of travel and light being constant, length contraction would have a faster tick rate than when the mirrors are 90 degrees to vector speed.

My relativity uses Euclidean space, Euclidean time based on c with no physical contraction. All observations remain the same using relativity mathematics. E=c and E=mc^2 because c moves the electrons.

I will understand if you still maintain a physical contraction belief but will not understand your reasoning. I was taught physical contraction but could not resolve the light clock by orientation. If one observation fails the theory fails.

For me physical contraction failed while visual contraction is a natural result of the relativity postulates.
.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/05/2017 17:12:24
Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.
Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Box,

You are going off on a diversion. Clearly if the trains moved at 0.866c on a small tabletop our eyes would see a blur and not be able to make out anything as a train at all, but you are expected to have sufficient intelligence to separate out irrelevant issues from the ones that matter in the thought experiment so that you don't prevent yourself from understanding what's being illustrated. It's your job to fix all the small details for yourself, such as giving yourself better eyesight with a superior frame rate so that you can see the action properly, and this can be done by using a special camera which can record the action and play it back to you, thereby showing up the length-contraction on the trains. If you can't conceive of such advanced camera technology, you can go in a different direction by scaling up the experiment, perhaps using a table a light-minute long (apx. ten million miles). That is your job and not mine. It is also your job to design ways of developing trains capable of cornering at such a high speed without coming off the rails or vaporising them. Thought experiments require you do do some work in thinking your way round them - you are supposed to focus on relevant aspects of them and not waste your time trying to undermine them in ways that have no bearing on the principles being explored. Unless you approach them the right way, you are hampering your learning, which explains why there is still no evidence on show that you have ever managed to do any.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/05/2017 18:14:34
You ignored my example and made one of your own.

I couldn't follow yours as it wasn't defined well enough to make sense of it without a diagram, but from what I could make of it it was only exploring light on a zigzag path again, which means it was effectively looking at a light clock arranged perpendicular to its direction of travel, and at that angle there is no length-contraction involved in what happens to it. You need to move on from that and start exploring the maths of a light clock aligned with its direction of travel (which means all that 30 and 60 degree stuff isn't involved in it).

Quote
Here is one inconsistent with physical contraction of length. You cannot get around this observation with your belief in physical contraction. If you can find a way around it I will have to reconsider physical length contraction. I discarded physical contraction because of this observation.

You are the one with the inconsistency - I've shown you how long it takes for light starting from the back of a carriage to reach the mirror at the front end and it cannot cover that distance quickly enough unless you allow it to go faster than the speed of light or if you contract the length of the carriage. If we have a light clock perpendicular to the carriage, the light will follow a zigzag path and tick faster than a light clock aligned with the carriage. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, the platform clock ticks twice for every tick of the light clock in the carriage that's aligned across the carriage, and it will tick four times for every tick of the light clock in the carriage that's aligned lengthways along the carriage. That is what the MMX guys expected to show up with their experiment, but it produced a null result instead every time (and continues to do so a century later with much better equipment). That is why the length-contraction must be real.

Quote
All light clocks tick at the same rate independent of their orientation. Using the postulate light being independent of the source and light is constant lets look at orientation.

When mirrors are aligned with the direction of travel and light being constant, length contraction would have a faster tick rate than when the mirrors are 90 degrees to vector speed.

Your description is insufficient to understand which way your mirrors are aligned. When I go with the most obvious way to interpret your description, I get the opposite conclusion to the one you've provided. A mirror occupies a plane, and if that plane is perpendicular to the direction in which the mirrors are moving (with the mirrors parallel to each other), then the light moving between them will be moving in the same direction as the mirrors some of the time and in the opposite direction the rest of the time, and in this case the clock will tick less often rather than more often - this is the equivalent of the light clock in the carriage where the light starts from the back of the carriage and has to chase after the mirror at the front end for a long time before it can bounce off it and return to the start, and as I've shown you, it takes a very long time for it to catch up with the leading mirror.

Quote
My relativity uses Euclidean space, Euclidean time based on c with no physical contraction. All observations remain the same using relativity mathematics. E=c and E=mc^2 because c moves the electrons.

That's lovely, but you have to follow the rules of Euclidean space and time and not have light go faster than the speed of light. If the carriage is 10cm long, at 0.867c and with no length-contraction it will take nearly seven times as long for light to get from the back end of it to the front end as it would take it with the carriage stationary, but the moving clock has to click once for every two ticks of the stationary clock. I've shown you the numbers that demonstrate that the moving clock can only tick once for every four ticks of the stationary clock unless you contract its length. How do you handle that without applying contraction and without having the light move at twice the speed of light?

Quote
I will understand if you still maintain a physical contraction belief but will not understand your reasoning. I was taught physical contraction but could not resolve the light clock by orientation. If one observation fails the theory fails.

Have you still not crunched the numbers to see for yourself? I've given you a set of numbers for 0.867c, so do you think they're wrong? The carriage is moving at 0.866c and light is moving at c, so how long do you think it takes for light to get from the back of the carriage to the front? You don't have to believe my numbers - you can generate your own and see if they match up. What you really ought to do though is try it out with a speed of your own choice, such as 0.5c for the speed of the train. How long will light take to get from the back of the carriage to the front at that speed and how long will it take to go back from the front to the back to complete a tick. If you do the maths correctly, you'll find that you need to contract the moving carriage from 10cm to 8.67cm for your clock to tick at the right rate relative to the stationary clock on the platform. The maths at 0.5c is more awkward than with my 0.867c example, so I can understand why you've never bothered to try to work out the answer before, but you need to do this if you are to begin to understand relativity.

Quote
For me physical contraction failed while visual contraction is a natural result of the relativity postulates.

And you will remain stuck with that misunderstanding so long as you fail to do the maths to check whether it hangs together or not. Look at my numbers and ask yourself how a light clock aligned lengthways in a carriage moving at 0.867c can possibly tick half as often as a stationary clock on the platform when it takes light four times as long to complete a round trip within the moving clock. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and study how fast the red light pulses move across the screen and how far they travel relative to the apparatus. It's only in the second one with length-contraction that the light on the horizontal arm is able to complete its round trip in the same time as the light on the vertical arm to produce a null result. I've put it all in front of your eyes in clear view and there's nothing more I can do for you if you still can't see it.

Study the first interactive diagram of the MMX again and remember that the two arms are equivalent to a pair of light clocks. On the left you have a stationary MMX showing a tick completed in 250 units of the time counter underneath, and then on the right there's a moving MMX with no length-contraction. On the vertical arm you see a tick being completed at 500 units of counter time, but on the horizontal arm the light has not finished its round trip. If you then look at the second interactive diagram instead (with length-contraction applied to the horizontal arm, halving it's length as required for the speed of 0.867c), you can see the light completing a tick in 500 time units on both arms of the apparatus, and that's what matches up with the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 07/05/2017 19:22:15
Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.
Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Box,

You are going off on a diversion. Clearly if the trains moved at 0.866c on a small tabletop our eyes would see a blur and not be able to make out anything as a train at all, but you are expected to have sufficient intelligence to separate out irrelevant issues from the ones that matter in the thought experiment so that you don't prevent yourself from understanding what's being illustrated. It's your job to fix all the small details for yourself, such as giving yourself better eyesight with a superior frame rate so that you can see the action properly, and this can be done by using a special camera which can record the action and play it back to you, thereby showing up the length-contraction on the trains. If you can't conceive of such advanced camera technology, you can go in a different direction by scaling up the experiment, perhaps using a table a light-minute long (apx. ten million miles). That is your job and not mine. It is also your job to design ways of developing trains capable of cornering at such a high speed without coming off the rails or vaporising them. Thought experiments require you do do some work in thinking your way round them - you are supposed to focus on relevant aspects of them and not waste your time trying to undermine them in ways that have no bearing on the principles being explored. Unless you approach them the right way, you are hampering your learning, which explains why there is still no evidence on show that you have ever managed to do any.

Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride, for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus, so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/05/2017 21:03:33
Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride...

Where does pride come into the issue? All I do is pursue truth by pushing things to breaking point. When my ideas break, I change them, and where other people's ideas break, I show them where they break and they generally dig in to defend them regardless of how broken they are, although there are some who are adaptable enough to learn and advance.

Quote
... for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus...

And how long does that difference in speed need to last? If you accelerate something to a high speed and then let it settle down to that high speed, the length will adjust until the atoms are sitting the right distance apart for it to be neither stretched nor compressed. There will be times during this adjustment when the trailing end is moving faster than the leading end, but once it's settled down the speeds of both ends will match.

Quote
..., so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

To your mind, everything that makes sense breaks down and everything irrational is good. The result is that you go round scrawling your ignorance all over hundreds of threads in the forum. Perhaps it's an art project of some kind, but it isn't one that I care for.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 07/05/2017 21:47:20
Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride...

Quote
Where does pride come into the issue? All I do is pursue truth by pushing things to breaking point. When my ideas break, I change them, and where other people's ideas break, I show them where they break and they generally dig in to defend them regardless of how broken they are, although there are some who are adaptable enough to learn and advance.

Likewise I break things down ''things'' down to the naked science, the bare essentials and rudiment of thought, thus being why it is always best to start at the ''beginning''. Maybe in your own mind you think you are breaking things down, however how far can your mind go before it hits the ''wall'' and can go no further.
For one to understand one must firstly want to listen, there is not many who like to listen but prefer their own voice .


Quote
... for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus...

Quote
And how long does that difference in speed need to last? If you accelerate something to a high speed and then let it settle down to that high speed, the length will adjust until the atoms are sitting the right distance apart for it to be neither stretched nor compressed. There will be times during this adjustment when the trailing end is moving faster than the leading end, but once it's settled down the speeds of both ends will match.
For something to contract there would be ''cracks'' and once returned to normal velocity we could quite clearly observe no ''cracks''.  This is why we have stress levels etc, the sort of science that is real. 
Also The object would deform , more than likely curve like,



Quote
..., so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

Quote
To your mind, everything that makes sense breaks down and everything irrational is good. The result is that you go round scrawling your ignorance all over hundreds of threads in the forum. Perhaps it's an art project of some kind, but it isn't one that I care for.

Maybe you are not clever enough to understand me and I am beyond your inability to break down.

P.s Please feel free to try breakdown my ideas about time in other thread. (you will fail)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 08/05/2017 17:41:58
Likewise I break things down ''things'' down to the naked science, the bare essentials and rudiment of thought, thus being why it is always best to start at the ''beginning''. Maybe in your own mind you think you are breaking things down, however how far can your mind go before it hits the ''wall'' and can go no further.
For one to understand one must firstly want to listen, there is not many who like to listen but prefer their own voice .

The difference between us is the rigour with which we break things down and the amount of magic that you tolerate to maintain your beliefs that things work in ways which are logically impossible. To be fair to you though, I haven't read much of what you've written over the last year or so and it's possible that you have shifted position on many issues without me noticing, although reading some of your recent posts doesn't inspire me to want to put in the time required to check.

Quote
For something to contract there would be ''cracks'' and once returned to normal velocity we could quite clearly observe no ''cracks''.  This is why we have stress levels etc, the sort of science that is real. 
Also The object would deform , more than likely curve like,

Why should there be cracks? If the higher speed of travel leads to the atoms settling closer together in their direction of travel, they'll simply move closer to each other without affecting the integrity of whatever object they collectively form. During acceleration there will be stresses on the object, of course, and these may take the form of stretch if the acceleration is applied from the front (the engine of a train normally pulls the carriages), but if the acceleration is applied to the back (e.g. moving a train backwards, or a boat with a propeller at the back) then it will take the form of compression. If the stresses are too high, the object will break, so you need to keep the G force low throughout the acceleration to avoid this. The length-contraction resulting from moving at higher speed does not apply stresses but results from atoms settling into places that eliminate (or minimise) stress. (Not all stresses can be eliminated because some structures have stresses locked into them, but that's another issue entirely.)

Quote
Maybe you are not clever enough to understand me and I am beyond your inability to break down.

I doubt science can understand you yet, but it is not a bad thing for it to have that ambition.

Quote
P.s Please feel free to try breakdown my ideas about time in other thread. (you will fail)

I doubt that's necessary - if your ideas about time don't fit the facts, they're already broken, but if they fit the facts, they shouldn't be in conflict with my ideas about time.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 08/05/2017 18:28:31
And you will remain stuck with that misunderstanding so long as you fail to do the maths to check whether it hangs together or not. Look at my numbers and ask yourself how a light clock aligned lengthways in a carriage moving at 0.867c can possibly tick half as often as a stationary clock on the platform when it takes light four times as long to complete a round trip within the moving clock. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and study how fast the red light pulses move across the screen and how far they travel relative to the apparatus. It's only in the second one with length-contraction that the light on the horizontal arm is able to complete its round trip in the same time as the light on the vertical arm to produce a null result. I've put it all in front of your eyes in clear view and there's nothing more I can do for you if you still can't see it.

Ok lets do it my way with light zig zagging between mirrors.

For your example: A^2 + B^2 = C^2 or A^2 = C^2 - B^2 A and C are the distance for light A= 1 B=0.866025 since you chose the half tick rate:
Sq Rt 1^2= 1^2 - 0.866025^2  = SQ. RT. 1 = 1 - 0.749999  =  SQ.RT. 1=1 SQ.RT. 1 -0.75 = SQ. RT. 0.25 = 0.5 vs. 1 for the platform.

Sq Rt 1^2= 1^2 -0.5^2  = SQ. RT. 1 = 1 - 0.749999  =  SQ.RT. 1=1 SQ.RT. 1 -0.25 = SQ. RT. 0.25 = 0.866025 vs. 1 for the platform

This is from where the Lorentz contraction came.  Zig zagging light making right triangles. I get the same answers as you do in Euclidean space.

Is a clock tick rate more non linear than relativity suggests at higher relative velocities? If that's the case than orientation of the clock will change the tick rate above half the speed of light for light clocks. At half the speed of light the two way speed of light compensates to match Lorentz contraction of tick rate in every angle
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 08/05/2017 20:28:14
Ok lets do it my way with light zig zagging between mirrors.

No. You're still avoiding doing the maths that you need to do. All you've ever done is the maths for a light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, and that does not impact on length-contraction at all. I asked you to do the maths for a light clock aligned with its direction of travel where the light has to chase after a mirror that's moving directly away from it without any zigzagging involved. I showed you my numbers for this to see if you would disagree with them, and I then suggested that you should produce numbers in the same way for a different speed of travel such as 0.5c with a light clock aligned in the same direction as it is moving in (so that you can work your way through the idea more independently).

Quote
This is from where the Lorentz contraction came.  Zig zagging light making right triangles. I get the same answers as you do in Euclidean space.

That is where time dilation comes from, but not where length-contraction comes from. Length-contraction comes in when you try to get light clocks aligned in the same direction as their direction of travel to conform to the same tick rate as light clocks aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel. The numbers produced at the end of the process happen to be the same, so it turns out that you can always take the length-contraction figure from the time dilation figure calculated from a light clock perpendicular to its direction of travel, but in working out length-contraction from scratch after the MMX produced its null result, Lorentz had to look at how light clocks aligned in the same direction as their direction of travel behave, and you must do the same if you are ever going to understand why length contraction is necessary.

Quote
Is a clock tick rate more non linear than relativity suggests at higher relative velocities?

I can't work out what you're trying to ask, but you can easily crunch a few numbers to see how much time dilation and length-contraction applies at higher speeds, and you can plot your own graph of the results. At 0.968c you'll find length-contraction is still only to 1/4 of the rest length, but the dilation and contraction become severe rapidly after that. 0.968c is another good speed to work with when you're exploring length contraction because a light clock in a carriage aligned perpendicular to the carriage will tick once for every four ticks of the platform's clock while a light clock aligned lengthways down the carriage will tick once for every 16 ticks of the platform's clock if it isn't length-contracted to 1/4 of its rest length. Perhaps you'd like to explore that to see how long it takes light from the back of the carriage to reach the mirror at the front. With the light starting from a point 10cm behind the leading mirror, it will have closed in on the mirror by only 0.32cm by the time it's gone 10cm because the mirror has moved 9.68cm. By the time the platform's completed four ticks, the light in the carriage will have closed in on the mirror it's chasing by 8 times 0.32cm, so that's 2.56cm - it's only gone a little bit more than a quarter of the distance it has to cover to reach the mirror, and yet by this time it should have bounced off it and returned to the tail end of the carriage to complete a tick. This maths isn't so scary if you put your mind to it, so give it a go and stop limiting yourself to testing the perpendicular light clock over and over again which will tell you absolutely nothing about why length-contraction is needed to account for the null result of MMX.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 08/05/2017 22:33:39


I doubt that's necessary - if your ideas about time don't fit the facts, they're already broken, but if they fit the facts, they shouldn't be in conflict with my ideas about time.

I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/05/2017 17:50:06
I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.

I spent a lot of time discussing things with you in the past and found you to be incapable of recognising a whole host of errors in your thinking (no matter how clearly they were shown to you and no matter how many different ways they were shown to you). I'm not prepared to spend any more of my time trying to lead a horse to water when it shows every sign of being incapable of drinking - that is a job for AGI to take on, so I'd rather put the time into building AGI. Then you (and anyone else whose thinking is riddled with errors) will have access to a perfect reasoning machine with the patience of a God, and it will be able to demonstrate everything to you directly on the screen with purpose-build interactive diagrams tailored to your needs in real time, which is something that simply isn't practical even for a team of the most capable humans working on you via a forum. Most importantly, it will be able to follow your own rules to the letter and show you how they conflict with each other and generate a mass of contradiction, so that's the best hope for anything being able to help you to tidy up your thinking. No human is going to want to untangle that mess for you, so you're just going to have to be patient and wait for machine assistance.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 09/05/2017 19:22:25
I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.

I spent a lot of time discussing things with you in the past and found you to be incapable of recognising a whole host of errors in your thinking (no matter how clearly they were shown to you and no matter how many different ways they were shown to you). I'm not prepared to spend any more of my time trying to lead a horse to water when it shows every sign of being incapable of drinking - that is a job for AGI to take on, so I'd rather put the time into building AGI. Then you (and anyone else whose thinking is riddled with errors) will have access to a perfect reasoning machine with the patience of a God, and it will be able to demonstrate everything to you directly on the screen with purpose-build interactive diagrams tailored to your needs in real time, which is something that simply isn't practical even for a team of the most capable humans working on you via a forum. Most importantly, it will be able to follow your own rules to the letter and show you how they conflict with each other and generate a mass of contradiction, so that's the best hope for anything being able to help you to tidy up your thinking. No human is going to want to untangle that mess for you, so you're just going to have to be patient and wait for machine assistance.
Quite clearly by your arrogant words you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?  thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

Computers are not the answer to anything.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/05/2017 21:50:32
Quite clearly by your arrogant words...

And you aren't arrogant? You spend most of your time telling people that they're wrong, but you also fail to back up your claims with rational arguments.

Quote
...you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

Give me a link to it so that I can look at the first post, and provide a list of any other numbered posts which are essential to your argument so that I don't have to read the whole thread.

Quote
No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

What usually happens with you is that you refuse to accept things that are logical requirements, and at that point further discussion becomes pointless.

Quote
Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?

I doubt you've ever tried hard to think.

Quote
thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

If one plays chess against a pigeon, it generally knocks all your pieces over and defecates on the board, but that doesn't mean it's won.

Quote
Computers are not the answer to anything.

They will certainly be the answer to this.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 09/05/2017 23:02:11
Quite clearly by your arrogant words...

And you aren't arrogant? You spend most of your time telling people that they're wrong, but you also fail to back up your claims with rational arguments.

Quote
...you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

Give me a link to it so that I can look at the first post, and provide a list of any other numbered posts which are essential to your argument so that I don't have to read the whole thread.

Quote
No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

What usually happens with you is that you refuse to accept things that are logical requirements, and at that point further discussion becomes pointless.

Quote
Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?

I doubt you've ever tried hard to think.

Quote
thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

If one plays chess against a pigeon, it generally knocks all your pieces over and defecates on the board, but that doesn't mean it's won.

Quote
Computers are not the answer to anything.

They will certainly be the answer to this.

Ok, I only need you to read the first post and premise for argument.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69890.0

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/05/2017 00:50:39
Box,

Quote
Times passes by for any matter in the Universe, but how fast does time pass matter by?  One could set a rate and use an equivalent to record the measurement of time!  However, one would be by doing this, setting the speed of time by there own equivalents speed/rate.

It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement  being used.   This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.

Is that it? What does it mean? The present is momentary and moves on such that what was present becomes past? Time passes at the rate time passes? Nothing revolutionary there - it fits with LET.

Quote
added - time is the memory of passed events.

The memory of passed events cannot be substituted for time in any simulation, so that bit's clearly wrong.

Next post:-

Quote
I prefer the measurement of past time to be that of a mechanical and constant nature, a normal mechanical clock  does  the job.

You run into problems with that when you move a clock quickly or put it in a gravity well - whenever it runs slow, you're failing to count all the time that's gone by.

Quote
It is not the question of how we measure time though, it is the importance of understanding time and the realisation of that there is no time dilation, time travel or likes.

There clearly is time dilation, but the issue with it is the interpretation of what's going on. Some say that when one clock runs faster than another, they've both recorded true time without either of them really running slow (SR), but others say that both are governed by absolute time and that at least one of them ran slow (LET).

Quote
No past or future and only the present state of matter which ''decays'' in space.

The past was and the future will be, but they are not in the present (LET). [SR has other ways of looking things in which all times can be eternal.]

Quote
Simultaneity is the stuff of fairy tales and easy to prove incorrect.

Simultaneity is real. Without it you can have no interactions between things as they can't meet up in the same place and time. You also lose the ability to have a "while".

Quote
One visual universe whole that visual matter exists in a present state, we measure change of the state of matter, but all the measurements are past measurements,  ''time'' passes by at an instant and infinite speed for all matter.

Nothing innovative there.

Next post:-

Quote
Although matter decays at different rates taking into account ''time'' dilation, the rate of true time is constant, decay does not mean different ages.   The twin with the relative slower decay clock, does not age less, they just decay less. and last longer in ''time''. The period of time for both twins is synchronous, but the travelling twin who has decayed less, lives longer.

How can it be synchronous when you've denied simultaneity? But what you've described here is consistent with LET's position which is that slowed clocks simply run slow and decay less because there is less opportunity for them to change. Where do I have to look to find your revolutionary idea that doesn't date back hundreds of years?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 10/05/2017 01:38:48
Box,



Quote
It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement  being used.   This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.

Quote
Is that it? What does it mean? The present is momentary and moves on such that what was present becomes past? Time passes at the rate time passes? Nothing revolutionary there - it fits with LET.


You should of really posted this in my thread rather than the high jack of Goc's thread.  Quite clearly your ability to understand is difficult for you. If you was as smart as you think you are , you would understand what it meant without further explanation from me.
Maybe you should read the rest of my thread! you may find it gets really interesting when I show science how naive they have been for the past 100 years or so .
However I will leave you with a relative question that the answer should then allow you to understand what ''that'' means.

This a question about two observers, one observer is on Earth and one observer  is on planet x.

Both observers have to devise a way to measure time, both observers decide that 1 rotation of their relative planet would be equal too one day. Planet Earth's rotation speed is differential to that of planet x.

Why can't the observers devise time using this method?











 

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/05/2017 20:09:05
You should of really posted this in my thread rather than the high jack of Goc's thread.

You think I hijacked his thread? You don't think it might have been you that did that? If I'd posted it in your thread without reading the whole thread, that would have been disrespecting everyone else who'd posted there as they might already have said the same things I was going to say, and all of them would have been pestered by an email about it too. The path of minimum disruption was to deal with you here.

Quote
Quite clearly your ability to understand is difficult for you. If you was as smart as you think you are , you would understand what it meant without further explanation from me.

I can't read your mind, so when you describe something in a confused manner, I'd prefer it if you'd rephrase it clearly instead so that it's clear what you think you're applying logic to, and how you imagine you're applying logic to it.

Quote
Maybe you should read the rest of my thread! you may find it gets really interesting when I show science how naive they have been for the past 100 years or so .

I know exactly how naive they've been, but I've also seen more than enough evidence that you aren't up to speed with things either.

Quote
However I will leave you with a relative question that the answer should then allow you to understand what ''that'' means.

This a question about two observers, one observer is on Earth and one observer  is on planet x.

Both observers have to devise a way to measure time, both observers decide that 1 rotation of their relative planet would be equal too one day. Planet Earth's rotation speed is differential to that of planet x.

Why can't the observers devise time using this method?

They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs - it simply runs at whatever speed it runs at (and our perception of how fast it runs could be very different from that of other species and aliens). That appears to fit with what you said, but the bit I couldn't make sense of is how you get from there to denying time dilation. You didn't provide an interpretation of what you mean by time dilation either - in SR, time dilation is a kind of voodoo in which things can take shortcuts into the future, but in LET time dilation simply means that some clocks run slow due to their depth in a gravity well or their speed of travel and fail to record absolute time as a result, which I suspect fits with your position.

I'm intrigued by the "yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen" part though - I don't know who you were referring to there.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 10/05/2017 23:06:23
They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs
Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.   The mind I was referring to is my own.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/05/2017 17:46:46
They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs
Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.

If you read carefully and understood everything, you'd have worked out that you are not the only person who doesn't consider "time dilation" to be a dilation of time. Lorentz never took it as that, but I think he used the term, although he may merely have done so when speaking the same language as Einstein. "Time dilation" is certainly not a good term to use for LET where it is merely a clock running slow.

Quote
The mind I was referring to is my own.

Then why do you make mistakes all over the place and fail to acknowledge or correct them? I told you when you first posted on this forum that it looked as if you ought to be in the LET camp, but you didn't realise that and you still don't. What is so special about your position and your mind? You denied the role of a fabric of space and insisted that space was nothing, which led to the problem that you had a "nothing" with properties that enabled it to impose three space dimensions on its content, to enable separation of objects by distance, and to impose a speed limit on light through your "nothing". Have you realised yet that your "nothing" must be something?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 11/05/2017 18:24:09
David,

Sorry work interferes with pleasure sometimes. I enjoy our discussions with the knowledge you and I are not all knowing.
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light. I may have misunderstood Einstein's Relativity with how it handles time as a dimension. I understand time as the energy of motion with energy being of space and not mass. So c = spin particle energy of a stationary existence causing the propagation of a wave on the grid spectrum with the resistance caused by mass, we call a photon. Of course the photon and rotating electron motion being c. Straight vector c for the photon and a rotating vector motion c for the electron.

Math has to follow a theory to be correct but math can also follow a theory that is incorrect.

Lets try to train (excuse the pun) me up a bit. This is titled mechanical relativity. What causes mass to contract with velocity in space?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/05/2017 21:30:06
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light. I may have misunderstood Einstein's Relativity with how it handles time as a dimension. I understand time as the energy of motion with energy being of space and not mass. So c = spin particle energy of a stationary existence causing the propagation of a wave on the grid spectrum with the resistance caused by mass, we call a photon. Of course the photon and rotating electron motion being c. Straight vector c for the photon and a rotating vector motion c for the electron.

That sounds viable in part, but I wouldn't want to equate it with time. We know that matter can decay into electromagnetic radiation, so it's essentially the same stuff tied up in knots. As radiation it is free to move at maximum speed, and that speed of movement freezes its functionality. When tied up in matter, it's hard to know what it's all doing in there. Some of it may be racing about at c, and maybe all of it is. Any particle that is spread out, like an electron, is complex, having different parts in different locations, and something must be organising and maintaining its shape. That maintenance must involve communications operating continually, and they most likely operate at c. If we can measure the shape of an electron with great precision (and I'm fairly sure that I've heard that we can), length-contraction must operate on it - if it didn't, we'd detect it changing relative to our measuring equipment depending on the time of day and the month when we measure it in (due to the Earth's rotation and orbit round the sun). I'm not aware of any science that can explain the functionality of an electron in terms of the behaviour of smaller components and interactions between those components, so I suspect we only have theories about what might be going on inside them, and I don't know how deep those theories go.

But what is time? I think of it as opportunity for movement (and thereby opportunity for change). A photon is able to move and time governs its movement. A particle is able to age, and that ageing depends on internal movement which is again governed by time. But time is not energy. Light is energy (or one type of transmission of energy). Matter is energy running on the spot (but with complications, such as having mass, although light too has mass in some form, adding that mass to any object that absorbs it). Time is not made of light or matter, or indeed of energy - it appears to be something distinct and fundamental that can't be broken down into other things.

Quote
Lets try to train (excuse the pun) me up a bit. This is titled mechanical relativity. What causes mass to contract with velocity in space?

It isn't mass that's contracting, but matter, and it's spread-out matter rather than a point particle. Without knowing what's going on in the components of this matter, we can only speculate about the mechanisms by which it functions. There is likely a smallest component of energy, and even with photons we're not seeing an indivisible object - they can be high-energy photons like gamma rays or low energy ones like radio waves, and we haven't yet found a smallest component of energy out of which they're built in multiples. Then there's the question as to whether the light is a thing in its own right or if it's just the movement of a space fabric as energy moves through it. There's too much that's unknown.

What we can say about the mechanism of length-contraction though is that it makes sense if you work at a higher level with things which communicate with each other and coordinate their relative positions. If we work with rockets, for example, we can have four of them forming a square and sitting in space. If we then decide to move them somewhere, they have to accelerate, and if they start this at the same moment by the time of the frame of reference in which they are stationary, they will soon find that they appear to be too far apart in their direction of travel, though their separation perpendicular to that appears unchanged. If they want to continue to act as a square (by their own measurements), they must settle closer together in their direction of travel. If, for example, we have rockets A and B in the lead with C and D following them such that they're forming a square with A neither leading nor trailing B (and with C following B's path while D follows A), A and D will need to move closer together, as will B and C. We can use pairs of these rockets as the ends of light clocks and ping light or radio signals back and forth between them, and if we do that, it's only by length-contracting the square that the timings will be the same sideways across the square as lengthways. So, length-contraction makes sense for rockets where coordination is involved in maintaining their separation.

Are components of matter also comparing communication distances and making adjustments to keep them equal in different directions? I doubt it, but whatever they're doing, it has the same effect.

What we need to look at is a small object orbiting a massive one in what would be a circular orbit if the massive object is considered to be stationary. If we take the massive object as moving at 0.867c though, the orbit of the small object moving around it will turn into an ellipse, and the massive object will still be at the centre of that ellipse rather than at one of the foci. This orbit must be compatible with the normal rules about how gravity acts on things, and within that must lie the explanation for length-contraction, although you will need to take into account the change in mass of the orbiting object due to "relativistic mass" - it's that extra factor that makes the key difference in the calculations. For example, if the orbiting object is going round the massive object at 0.2c, its speed through space can never hit the maximum of 1.0867c that a naive interpretation would predict for it. The speed of the orbiting object will actually change a lot as it goes round the massive object (and I mean its speed relative to that massive object), and whenever its speed reduces, its relativistic mass has to go up instead to compensate. This same thing would be happening within atoms for any components that are moving forwards or backwards relative to the direction of travel of the atom, affecting their range by converting some of their speed into relativistic mass. That is the fundamental explanation of length-contraction.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 11/05/2017 22:31:47
They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs
Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.

If you read carefully and understood everything, you'd have worked out that you are not the only person who doesn't consider "time dilation" to be a dilation of time. Lorentz never took it as that, but I think he used the term, although he may merely have done so when speaking the same language as Einstein. "Time dilation" is certainly not a good term to use for LET where it is merely a clock running slow.

Quote
The mind I was referring to is my own.

Then why do you make mistakes all over the place and fail to acknowledge or correct them? I told you when you first posted on this forum that it looked as if you ought to be in the LET camp, but you didn't realise that and you still don't. What is so special about your position and your mind? You denied the role of a fabric of space and insisted that space was nothing, which led to the problem that you had a "nothing" with properties that enabled it to impose three space dimensions on its content, to enable separation of objects by distance, and to impose a speed limit on light through your "nothing". Have you realised yet that your "nothing" must be something?
I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.
You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason. I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .
Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 12/05/2017 19:15:13
I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.

There is no reason why there should be any nothing at all, and all the objects that we think of as existing in space may actually be that fabric of space, just as waves on water are the water. What we do know of space though is that it imposes order on its content. What is it that makes all objects in our universe three dimensional, and what stops them rotating into other dimensions within a space that doesn't impose a three space-dimension limit on them? 2D objects in our 3D space would drift out of alignment with each other and seem to disappear for other 2D objects, and 3D objects in a space that doesn't have a 3D structure would drift out of alignment with other 3D objects in the same way as they rotate into other dimensions and appear to vanish. Light wouldn't spread out according to the inverse square law because it wouldn't be forced to remain within a 3D space in a space that doesn't impose that restriction upon it. Two objects that are supposedly a metre apart would actually be touching each other if there was literally nothing between them. Space is not nothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not in the game.

Quote
You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, ...

You have a model with magic in it because it gives properties to nothing that nothing cannot have. Whatever you build upon that failure is almost certainly going to be worthless.

Quote
...they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason.

That is more than evident.

Quote
I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .

Magical thinking doesn't destroy any theories, but should actually allow you to see them all as valid by fixing any faults they might have with more magic. You also have enormous comprehension difficulties, in this case leading you to state incorrectly that I've equated our present "speed" of time to the rotational speed of the Earth. There are many different things that measure time, but they all measure apparent time rather than absolute time, slowed by any gravitational interactions and by their speed of travel through the fabric of space (as well as the fabric of space's possible movement/expansion within another fabric [of which it may again be a part rather than content]).

Quote
Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .

All you've done is put yourself in an irrational position and fool yourself into thinking you're the one who's got it all right, but when your "nothing" has properties and thereby reveals itself to be something rather than nothing, everyone can see your position as ridiculous (unless they have the same ridiculous beliefs, and some SR fans aren't that far away from your position, failing to understand that their beloved Spacetime is also a fabric (aether).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 12/05/2017 19:31:48
More on length contraction:-

Imagine you're in a rocket and you want to fly it in a square path around a stationary central point. You can do this by accelerating from stationary in a moment using a blast of power, then wait until you're in the right place to put in a 90 degree turn. The turn can be made by stopping for a moment with a blast of power, then sending another blast sideways. It's easy to see how the square path can be completed.

Now do the same thing again, but this time with a central point that's moving at 0.867c. You start by moving at the same speed as that central point and place yourself the right distance relative to it to appear to be on a corner of the square you want to plot out with your movement. You follow exactly the same procedure as in the previous paragraph, and the resulting shape looks square to you, but to a stationary observer, it's length-contracted. If we try to make the rocket speed 0.867c too (relative to the central point) while it's moving along the edges of our square, its actual speed will vary considerably from the point of view of a stationary observer, so if two of the edges of the square are aligned in the same direction as the direction the central point is moving in, the rocket will actually be stationary when it's plotting out one edge of the square and will be moving at 0.99c when plotting out the opposite edge. It will take much longer to plot out the opposite edge too, but it will take the same length of time by the rocket's own clock.

That is length-contraction in action, the square shape  being halved in the direction of travel at this speed. If we were to control things by sending out signals from the central point to tell the rocket when to change course, it would plot out exactly the same length-contracted shape because of the communication delays, so a massive object with a small object orbiting it will produce the same contraction on its orbit too, and this will apply to anything else with components which move relative to each other as part of its functionality. Einstein criticised length-contraction in LET as ad hoc, but he was wrong to do so - it is something that happens in the full range of cases and for fully rational reasons.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/05/2017 19:39:39
SR was chosen over LET as a matter of convention. There is no reason why LET shouldn't replace SR.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 13/05/2017 18:47:48
David,

Once again lets look at a situation to determine if you believe light can go 90 degrees from a vector direction. I do not believe that is possible. So,

Two ships going the speed of light ( can't happen but just for grins and giggles) shoot out light perpendicular (you can't create light at the speed of light but humor me). Could one ship view the light from the other.
The real answer is no but you may have another view.

Now at 0.999 c perpendicular view?
0.867 c perpendicular view?

I do not believe any relativistic speed can have a perpendicular view. Light being independent of the source and simultaneity of relativity.

What is your understanding?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 13/05/2017 19:10:37
Once again lets look at a situation to determine if you believe light can go 90 degrees from a vector direction. I do not believe that is possible.

Could you phrase that more carefully so that I can tell what it means? Do you mean that if an object is moving along, it can't emit light at 90 degrees to it (the object's) direction of travel? It can put light out in all directions. If you are imagining a laser with the object aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel of the object, then that can't put out light at 90 degrees to that direction unless the object is stationary.

Quote
So,

Two ships going the speed of light ( can't happen but just for grins and giggles) shoot out light perpendicular (you can't create light at the speed of light but humor me). Could one ship view the light from the other.
The real answer is no but you may have another view.

If we allow the ships to move move at c [as opposed to at sea], their clocks will stop and so will their functionality, so they cannot produce light. If we magically allow them to produce light, it would either have to go backwards at some angle (although I suspect that would be zero-energy light and would therefore not exist) or directly forwards (at the same speed as the ships, so it would never appear to be emitted).

Quote
Now at 0.999 c perpendicular view?
0.867 c perpendicular view?

Now light can be produced that can go slightly to the side, thereby allowing it to make the trip between the two ships at an angle which to them appears perpendicular. It will take a long time to make the trip across in the 0.999c case, but it should do as their clocks are running very slow to match. In the 0.867c case it will take twice as long for the light to travel between the ships as it would if they were both at rest.

Quote
I do not believe any relativistic speed can have a perpendicular view. Light being independent of the source and simultaneity of relativity.

What is your understanding?

I can't see what the problem is. If you have two cars moving along a runway, each at opposite sides but level with each other, you can aim a gun on one car directly perpendicular to the car's direction of travel and hit the other car with a bullet. If we did that in a vacuum, the bullet would hit the other car as near to the front or back as the gun is positioned in the first car. If you replace the gun with a laser, the same thing applies - the light follows the path it takes through the laser and continues moving in that direction, then it would burn a hole straight through the other car perpendicular to that car's direction of travel, even though the light's not moving perpendicular to the runway. If you make the cars move at 0.999999c, the light will move so slowly through the laser (while moving through space at c) that it will be directed almost directly forwards, but it will still reach the other car eventually and burn a hole through it perpendicular to the car's direction of travel.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 13/05/2017 22:31:05

I can't see what the problem is. If you have two cars moving along a runway, each at opposite sides but level with each other, you can aim a gun on one car directly perpendicular to the car's direction of travel and hit the other car with a bullet. If we did that in a vacuum, the bullet would hit the other car as near to the front or back as the gun is positioned in the first car. If you replace the gun with a laser, the same thing applies - the light follows the path it takes through the laser and continues moving in that direction, then it would burn a hole straight through the other car perpendicular to that car's direction of travel, even though the light's not moving perpendicular to the runway. If you make the cars move at 0.999999c, the light will move so slowly through the laser (while moving through space at c) that it will be directed almost directly forwards, but it will still reach the other car eventually and burn a hole through it perpendicular to the car's direction of travel.

Ok, here we might have a difference in understanding.

There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 14/05/2017 15:54:25
I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.

Quote
There is no reason why there should be any nothing at all, and all the objects that we think of as existing in space may actually be that fabric of space, just as waves on water are the water. What we do know of space though is that it imposes order on its content. What is it that makes all objects in our universe three dimensional, and what stops them rotating into other dimensions within a space that doesn't impose a three space-dimension limit on them? 2D objects in our 3D space would drift out of alignment with each other and seem to disappear for other 2D objects, and 3D objects in a space that doesn't have a 3D structure would drift out of alignment with other 3D objects in the same way as they rotate into other dimensions and appear to vanish. Light wouldn't spread out according to the inverse square law because it wouldn't be forced to remain within a 3D space in a space that doesn't impose that restriction upon it. Two objects that are supposedly a metre apart would actually be touching each other if there was literally nothing between them. Space is not nothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not in the game.

Quite clearly you are incorrect and indeed nothing exists, May I ask are you defining nothing as without dimension?  or considering nothing to be a dimensional volume of 0 points?



Quote
You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, ...

Quote
You have a model with magic in it because it gives properties to nothing that nothing cannot have. Whatever you build upon that failure is almost certainly going to be worthless.
There is no properties in nothing, there is properties in the ''0'' field that occupies the volume of nothing. XYZ is the properties of nothing, do you even understand Minkowski's space-time?



Quote
...they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason.

[quoteThat is more than evident.

That would again be an incorrect statement, I am science.

Quote
I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .

Quote
Magical thinking doesn't destroy any theories, but should actually allow you to see them all as valid by fixing any faults they might have with more magic. You also have enormous comprehension difficulties, in this case leading you to state incorrectly that I've equated our present "speed" of time to the rotational speed of the Earth. There are many different things that measure time, but they all measure apparent time rather than absolute time, slowed by any gravitational interactions and by their speed of travel through the fabric of space (as well as the fabric of space's possible movement/expansion within another fabric [of which it may again be a part rather than content]).

There is no magic involved in my physics of the universe, there is only parlour tricks in your science, and not even good parlour tricks might I say, every thought experiment you think you have, I can discourse and show them to be fictional .

Quote
Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .

Quote
All you've done is put yourself in an irrational position and fool yourself into thinking you're the one who's got it all right, but when your "nothing" has properties and thereby reveals itself to be something rather than nothing, everyone can see your position as ridiculous (unless they have the same ridiculous beliefs, and some SR fans aren't that far away from your position, failing to understand that their beloved Spacetime is also a fabric (aether).

You will see in time. I am correct and the whole world is wrong, and no I am not deluded or have Dunning and Kruger or any such. I know how smart I am.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/05/2017 17:56:21
There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

The reason you've made this mistake is that you're thinking of the visual warping caused by looking at things moving at high speed relative to you, such as the railway sleepers which the railway track rests on - they are arranged perpendicular to the track, and we can extend them sideways to make them easier to see from inside the train, but let's also give the train a glass floor and glass walls so that we can see everything clearly. If we look at those lines, they will appear to curve with their leading point directly underneath us and then bend back as we follow them out to the sides, becoming straight lines once they're further away, pointing at some angle far behind the perpendicular. This is the warping you're thinking about, but it doesn't apply to things moving along with you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 14/05/2017 18:11:09
There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

The reason you've made this mistake is that you're thinking of the visual warping caused by looking at things moving at high speed relative to you, such as the railway sleepers which the railway track rests on - they are arranged perpendicular to the track, and we can extend them sideways to make them easier to see from inside the train, but let's also give the train a glass floor and glass walls so that we can see everything clearly. If we look at those lines, they will appear to curve with their leading point directly underneath us and then bend back as we follow them out to the sides, becoming straight lines once they're further away, pointing at some angle far behind the perpendicular. This is the warping you're thinking about, but it doesn't apply to things moving along with you.

I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

FYI 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 14/05/2017 18:19:37
Goc- For an object to physically contract the space around it would have to contract/expand also?

They are contracting the length of the object relative to space?

x1------------------------------------------------------

x2------------------------------------------------------

x1(space)=x2 (space)

Although I have used their parlour tricks to contract the length of the lines I can not contract the space thereafter x2

The red dots are just space beyond the black dots of length.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/05/2017 23:48:28
I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

If we're doing SR we can assert (irrationally) that there is no preferred frame of reference, so we only need to think about the frame of reference in which the track is stationary (let's call this frame X) and the frame of reference in which the train is stationary (which we can call frame Y). If we are working with frame X as our base, then the train is length contracted. If we are working with frame Y as our base, then the track is contracted.

If we're doing LET, we have a third frame to consider which is the preferred frame (which we can call frame Z). The speed at which the train and track move through frame Z determines how much they are actually contracted (in their direction of travel). We can still use frame X or Y as our base rather than Z (which is a frame we can't actually identify), but if we use frame X and say that the train is contracted for that frame, we are fully aware that the amount of contraction we calculate for the train almost certainly does not give us the true length of the train (which is almost certainly contracted to some degree in some direction). Switching the frame used as the base for our calculations has no effect whatsoever on the actual reality which is represented by frame Z (whose space fabric can never be contracted by anything moving through it - it is always the moving object that is contracted). We can use frame Z in thought experiments, but not in real-world experiments as we cannot identify it for those.

You should know ALL of that already and should not be making such objections.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 15/05/2017 12:03:54
There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?
Quote
You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.
Quote
Quote
While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 15/05/2017 12:18:48
I don't want to sound rude but you keep mentioning trains and tracks and ignoring the reference frame that surrounds them of space. Whilst your trains are doing whatever , trying  to subjectively shrink them, it has no affect what so ever on space-time.

If we're doing SR we can assert (irrationally) that there is no preferred frame of reference, so we only need to think about the frame of reference in which the track is stationary (let's call this frame X) and the frame of reference in which the train is stationary (which we can call frame Y). If we are working with frame X as our base, then the train is length contracted. If we are working with frame Y as our base, then the track is contracted.

If we're doing LET, we have a third frame to consider which is the preferred frame (which we can call frame Z). The speed at which the train and track move through frame Z determines how much they are actually contracted (in their direction of travel). We can still use frame X or Y as our base rather than Z (which is a frame we can't actually identify), but if we use frame X and say that the train is contracted for that frame, we are fully aware that the amount of contraction we calculate for the train almost certainly does not give us the true length of the train (which is almost certainly contracted to some degree in some direction). Switching the frame used as the base for our calculations has no effect whatsoever on the actual reality which is represented by frame Z (whose space fabric can never be contracted by anything moving through it - it is always the moving object that is contracted). We can use frame Z in thought experiments, but not in real-world experiments as we cannot identify it for those.

You should know ALL of that already and should not be making such objections.

Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

p.s keep going on LET in the Let thread, I need to know more about the Lorentz field idea by your own words and others words.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 15/05/2017 12:26:54
Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.  A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track,
The train does not physically contract, do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached , the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path, the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 15/05/2017 17:28:35
My observations after visiting the "Magic Schoolbook" site.

Quote
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.
__
The propagation speed of light in space is c, and it's independent of any moving object.
The actual time is what a local clock indicates.

Quote
During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it,
__
You stated previously "then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light,"

Quote
There is only one frame of reference which can be tied to the fabric of space, so its accounts are the ones which are true while all the other accounts are false.
__
Beginning with the hypothetical absolute rest frame, which experiences no time dilation and no length contraction, it can be shown that all moving inertial frames can be used as reference frames with the same equations describing the behavior of the universe. This results from the independence of light speed, which produces motion induced phenomena, time dilation and length contraction.

Quote
The way things work in LET results in it being impossible to tell if anything is moving or not: there is an absolute frame of reference which is tied to the fabric of space itself, but it cannot be identified because from where we are (inside the universe) all frames behave as if they might be that frame.
__
The universe as a complete entity has no external reference point for motion, thus by definition, it is not moving. Simple observation, near and distant, indicates a dynamic universe, thus the most realistic assumption is, everything is moving. If any frame can serve as a reference for motion, it greatly simplifies modeling the world with theories.
Think how complicated it would be to need to know where the center of the universe is, or where an absolute reference point is, before you could formulate the rules of physics.

Quote
Much more interesting though is what Einstein did with the nature of time, because he changed it into a dimension and in doing so turned the fabric of space into a four dimensional fabric called Spacetime.
__
He did not, Minkowski did when he expressed the coordinates in a general form. Something mathematicians like to do, make neat and tidy compact expressions.
A quote by A. Einstein:
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
His 1905 paper explicitly distinguishes time from spatial coordinates.
 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/05/2017 17:57:28
There are two trains with tracks running parallel. There is a 90 degree bar between both trains just behind you in your seat. Your brother is in the opposite train and you can see him in the window. The front of the trains are in front of your window and not in view. The trains are at rest. The physically parallel trains with the bar attached increase speed to 1/2 the speed of light. The bar now appears to be bent back and your brother appears to be behind perpendicular. Your brother views you to be behind and the bar bent backwards. Each of you can observe the front of the others train.. In reality both trains remained physically parallel. Its only the view that changed.

Can you follow this reasoning?

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.

A correction to begin with: I think I was wrong in what I said about the appearance of the railway sleepers - I now suspect they would curve forwards rather than backwards, but that's another discussion.

What matters here though is that the bar connecting your trains will continue to appear perpendicular at all times as viewed by the people on the trains regardless of their speed of travel. If that wasn't the case, it would be dead easy to detect our movement through space as we could simply move along with a perpendicular bar and measure how much it appears to bend as we speed up and slow down, but that will produce a null result because no such bending will show up. Indeed, we could simply line up a camera on any point and watch for that point moving as the Earth moves through space at different speeds and angles.

On the issue of light coming from further away:-

Imagine two lasers in the right-hand train (train R), both in line with your bar which joins train R to train L. One laser is at the left-hand side of train R and the other laser is at the right hand side of train R. Both lasers are pointing along the bar towards train L, but they are at different heights so that the laser on the right doesn't shoot the laser on the left, so it shoots its light over it instead. This will burn two holes through train L, one a couple of inches above the other, and these holes will both run perpendicular through train L (as measured by someone on the train) even though the light path runs at 30 degrees to the perpendicular through space. The light from the laser on the right had further to go before it reached train L, but it followed the same path as the light from the laser on the left. The difference is that the light in the higher beam was emitted before the light in the lower beam at any point where you compare adjacent photons (one directly above the other). If we use less powerful lasers again so that we can look at the laser light from train L, we find that they appear to come from the same direction as each other (horizontally, but with a small height difference between them). Just as each laser sends the light at 30 degrees to the perpendicular even though it's pointed perpendicular to the train, the eye corrects the 30 degree angle back to zero degrees due to the way the eye moves between the light entering the iris and hitting the retina, so the observer on train L who is next to the rod will always see the lasers directly to his side, and the bar likewise - there is no visual shift of these things backwards.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/05/2017 18:26:34
[Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Why the "just no"? The preferred frame is the one in which the fabric of space is stationary (although there are complications due to the expansion of the universe, which means the preferred frame may shift as you move along, but you won't be able to handle that idea, so it would be best not to get into that here).

Quote
Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

Quite clearly, you can take the preferred frame of LET as your "0", so what's the big problem?

Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.

That description does not fit with your diagram. What you should have said, if your diagram is correct, is that a platform runs beside the tangent to a circular track, the middle of the platform directly adjacent to the track at the point of closest approach.

Quote
A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track.

(1) You haven't stated where your observer is. (2) There is only going to be visual length expansion if the observer is looking at the train from ahead, but the actual length-contraction acting on the train will compete against that. (3) the curve of the track will not affect the nearest carriage to the observer when it is aligned perpendicular to his angle of view, so he will not be distracted by this issue.

Quote
The train does not physically contract,

Which means you either have light clocks in the train disagreeing about the length of a second or you have light going faster than c, so you've got a defective model.

Quote
do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached ,

Length-contraction in relativity applies to things without needing to squish them - they do not feel compressed.

Quote
the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path,

And they aren't stretched either.

Quote
the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.

The problem with you has not changed - you don't take anything on board but keep on talking nonsense no matter how often you're shown the faults in your model, and the reason you do that is that you can't get your mind round all the details to sort them out and get a full picture of what's going on. All you have is a mess of ideas which you've tricked yourself into thinking you understand. There is only one thing that you should be working on if you want to get anywhere with this stuff, and that's working out how a light clock aligned with its direction of travel always keeps pace with an identical light clock moving along with it which is aligned across its direction of travel. If you can get them to tick at the same rate without length-contracting one of the light clocks or having light travel faster than c for one of the light clocks, you will likely win a Nobel prize.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/05/2017 18:51:04
My observations after visiting the "Magic Schoolbook" site.

The propagation speed of light in space is c, and it's independent of any moving object.
The actual time is what a local clock indicates.

Local clocks measure apparent time rather than actual time. Any speed of movement of the clock through space will slow it, and its own mass will also slow it, so no clock can be built that measures absolute time.

Quote
Quote
During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it,
__
You stated previously "then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light,"

It returns at 0.866c relative to the Earth, but because the Earth is moving through space at 0.866c in the same direction, that means the rocket must travel at 0.99c through space.

Quote
Quote
There is only one frame of reference which can be tied to the fabric of space, so its accounts are the ones which are true while all the other accounts are false.
__
Beginning with the hypothetical absolute rest frame, which experiences no time dilation and no length contraction, it can be shown that all moving inertial frames can be used as reference frames with the same equations describing the behavior of the universe. This results from the independence of light speed, which produces motion induced phenomena, time dilation and length contraction.

Yes - from our point of view they all behave as if they are the preferred frame, but only one of them can actually be the preferred frame.

Quote
The universe as a complete entity has no external reference point for motion, thus by definition, it is not moving.

We can't tell if the universe is moving, but we shouldn't assume it isn't moving through some other kind of space (or expanding within another kind of space).

Quote
Simple observation, near and distant, indicates a dynamic universe, thus the most realistic assumption is, everything is moving. If any frame can serve as a reference for motion, it greatly simplifies modeling the world with theories.

Not when it generates contradictions. There has to be a rational mechanism behind what happens, and you can't have the same acceleration of a clock cause it both to tick faster and to tick slower. The accounts of events generated by using different frames of reference contradict each other, so they cannot all be correct.

Quote
Think how complicated it would be to need to know where the center of the universe is, or where an absolute reference point is, before you could formulate the rules of physics.

You don't need to pin a preferred frame down to formulate the rules of physics. LET manages to do it without identifying it.

Quote
Quote
Much more interesting though is what Einstein did with the nature of time, because he changed it into a dimension and in doing so turned the fabric of space into a four dimensional fabric called Spacetime.
__
He did not, Minkowski did when he expressed the coordinates in a general form. Something mathematicians like to do, make neat and tidy compact expressions.
A quote by A. Einstein:
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
His 1905 paper explicitly distinguishes time from spatial coordinates.

That's a complication which I avoided going into on the basis that those who know the details would recognise that it's unimportant, but I think I should edit it to mention it as a side issue. The problem is that the Spacetime model that's presented almost everywhere and attributed to Einstein is the one I've described, and the reason for that is simple - he's mixing incompatible models to hedge his bets, and one of the models he's trying to build his compound mess out of is LET.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 15/05/2017 19:28:30
[Just No, the preferred reference frame is always space, everything is relative to 0. 0 is equal to all of space , every zero point of space.

Why the "just no"? The preferred frame is the one in which the fabric of space is stationary (although there are complications due to the expansion of the universe, which means the preferred frame may shift as you move along, but you won't be able to handle that idea, so it would be best not to get into that here).

Quote
Quite clearly you need to understand 0 if you want to understand the Universe and where I am at with my thinking.

Quite clearly, you can take the preferred frame of LET as your "0", so what's the big problem?

Let me do some train thought for you, at the center of a circular track is platform.

That description does not fit with your diagram. What you should have said, if your diagram is correct, is that a platform runs beside the tangent to a circular track, the middle of the platform directly adjacent to the track at the point of closest approach.

Quote
A train that is 10 meters at rest length starts to travel around the track at the near speed of light, the observer observers a visual length expansion, the train also looks length contracted because it is curved on the track.

(1) You haven't stated where your observer is. (2) There is only going to be visual length expansion if the observer is looking at the train from ahead, but the actual length-contraction acting on the train will compete against that. (3) the curve of the track will not affect the nearest carriage to the observer when it is aligned perpendicular to his angle of view, so he will not be distracted by this issue.

Quote
The train does not physically contract,

Which means you either have light clocks in the train disagreeing about the length of a second or you have light going faster than c, so you've got a defective model.

Quote
do you think you can possibly understand that things contract when an equal and opposite force is attached ,

Length-contraction in relativity applies to things without needing to squish them - they do not feel compressed.

Quote
the train is actually stretched in a linear vector path,

And they aren't stretched either.

Quote
the field stretches the train and the gravity pulls the train back, the molecules widen not contract.

The problem with you has not changed - you don't take anything on board but keep on talking nonsense no matter how often you're shown the faults in your model, and the reason you do that is that you can't get your mind round all the details to sort them out and get a full picture of what's going on. All you have is a mess of ideas which you've tricked yourself into thinking you understand. There is only one thing that you should be working on if you want to get anywhere with this stuff, and that's working out how a light clock aligned with its direction of travel always keeps pace with an identical light clock moving along with it which is aligned across its direction of travel. If you can get them to tick at the same rate without length-contracting one of the light clocks or having light travel faster than c for one of the light clocks, you will likely win a Nobel prize.

Firstly, there is no problem with me, I took everything on board and in my reality things ''add'' up to accurate information and not parlour tricks.   The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train. The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.
There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic? 

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 00:55:36
The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train.

A carriage in the middle will look longer than a carriage near the end, so a distant observer who looks carefully will not be fooled.

Quote
The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.

You're back to the blurring issue again which has been dealt with before. Take photos with a camera with a high enough shutter speed to remove the blur and stop relying on your monkey vision.
 
Quote
There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

The forces that lead to the contraction are all internal ones which make the atoms settle closer together as the speed goes up - it is not compressed, but contracted without stress.

Quote
Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic?

Length-contraction comes from Fitzgerald and Lorentz rather than Einstein, and it's necessary to account for the MMX null result. As I've told you already, until you explore that properly, you'll continue to be nothing more than a tiresome ignoramus who fills threads that he can't understand with worthless junk. You should really be banned from posting in any threads that you haven't started because there's nothing to be gained by anyone conversing with you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 16/05/2017 11:56:43

You have misunderstood the visual effects of relativity. Things that are moving with you do not appear warped at all, so the bar continues to appear perpendicular to the train and your brother continues to appear directly to the side of you. The angle at which the light actually travels between these objects and your eyes changes, but the way it is detected cancels out that change. If you shoot a laser directly sideways across the gap between the trains and burn a hole through the other train, that hole will run through the train perpendicular to the train's direction of travel even though the laser light is moving at 60 degrees to the direction the train's moving in rather than perpendicular to it. If we use a less powerful laser that won't blind your brother, it could enter his eye and hit the retina, but there's a delay between it going through the iris and hitting the retina, during which time the eye has moved, and the result is that he will perceive the light as having come to him directly perpendicular to the trains.

While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you. I agree the perpendicular laser will hit perpendicular like you were at rest but the laser light will bend its view also. Simultaneity of relativity. Your view would rotate to observe the front of the other train. Your understanding is infinite speed of light to maintain a perpendicular view. The view has to rotate if you follow light independent of the source. If light were infinite we could not distinguish between objects.

If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction. We could really never test for physical contraction but simultaneity of relativity that includes light independent of the source has an inescapable conclusion of length contraction of view. Try to follow when the light wave would hit you and from what position from the past to get the angle of view. Light is just leaving the other train when you suggest you have a perpendicular view. That is impossible in relativity's simultaneity of relativity.
Quote
A correction to begin with: I think I was wrong in what I said about the appearance of the railway sleepers - I now suspect they would curve forwards rather than backwards, but that's another discussion.

There is no curve in light for SR (ok my SR). There is no momentum for light. Light is independent of the source. Einstein was incorrect to say space and time are separate. Events in space is on the LET side of the equation. Mass does not control the event space controls the events position where light is not independent of the space source position. You are doing some hybrid of independent of the source.
Quote
What matters here though is that the bar connecting your trains will continue to appear perpendicular at all times as viewed by the people on the trains regardless of their speed of travel.
Something will appear as a perpendicular view but it will not be a 90 degree view. It will be the forward image created by reflection of 90 degrees that you arrive to view. our laser perpendicular will bend backwards to hit a position further back on the opposite train. Independence of the source.
Quote
If that wasn't the case, it would be dead easy to detect our movement through space as we could simply move along with a perpendicular bar and measure how much it appears to bend as we speed up and slow down,
Yes but how could we test that? Is our view of perpendicular really perpendicular?
Quote
but that will produce a null result because no such bending will show up. Indeed, we could simply line up a camera on any point and watch for that point moving as the Earth moves through space at different speeds and angles.
There would be no bending. It would just appear as an angle.
Quote
On the issue of light coming from further away:-

Imagine two lasers in the right-hand train (train R), both in line with your bar which joins train R to train L. One laser is at the left-hand side of train R and the other laser is at the right hand side of train R. Both lasers are pointing along the bar towards train L, but they are at different heights so that the laser on the right doesn't shoot the laser on the left, so it shoots its light over it instead. This will burn two holes through train L, one a couple of inches above the other, and these holes will both run perpendicular through train L (as measured by someone on the train) even though the light path runs at 30 degrees to the perpendicular through space. The light from the laser on the right had further to go before it reached train L, but it followed the same path as the light from the laser on the left. The difference is that the light in the higher beam was emitted before the light in the lower beam at any point where you compare adjacent photons (one directly above the other). If we use less powerful lasers again so that we can look at the laser light from train L, we find that they appear to come from the same direction as each other (horizontally, but with a small height difference between them). Just as each laser sends the light at 30 degrees to the perpendicular even though it's pointed perpendicular to the train, the eye corrects the 30 degree angle back to zero degrees due to the way the eye moves between the light entering the iris and hitting the retina, so the observer on train L who is next to the rod will always see the lasers directly to his side, and the bar likewise - there is no visual shift of these things backwards.
The image is coming from a forward position you catch up to and the laser hits a position behind where you aim perpendicular. The view is always from a past position. Light does not have momentum.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 16/05/2017 14:49:46
The line at the side of the circular track shows the rest length of the train relative to the trains rest length when on a circular track and curved. From a distance the curved train will not look curved and look shorter than the linear train.

A carriage in the middle will look longer than a carriage near the end, so a distant observer who looks carefully will not be fooled.

Quote
The 1st person view observer is on the platform in the center of the circular track.  They will observer a blur that entirely surrounds them in a circle as the train travels around the track, quite clearly you do not understand about visual illusions of length that are not physical processes.

You're back to the blurring issue again which has been dealt with before. Take photos with a camera with a high enough shutter speed to remove the blur and stop relying on your monkey vision.
 
Quote
There is no opposing force to contract the physical length of the object. Also even if it did contract it wouldn't mean anything other than an opposing force putting pressure on the front of the object to contract the object.

The forces that lead to the contraction are all internal ones which make the atoms settle closer together as the speed goes up - it is not compressed, but contracted without stress.

Quote
Which part of Einsteins thought experiments do you not understand is ''parlour tricks'' that can be easily proven to be false logic?

Length-contraction comes from Fitzgerald and Lorentz rather than Einstein, and it's necessary to account for the MMX null result. As I've told you already, until you explore that properly, you'll continue to be nothing more than a tiresome ignoramus who fills threads that he can't understand with worthless junk. You should really be banned from posting in any threads that you haven't started because there's nothing to be gained by anyone conversing with you.

An object contracts through stress levels?  How quaint , what stress levels?  you are wrong.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 17:46:03
An object contracts through stress levels?  How quaint , what stress levels?  you are wrong.

Are you a chat bot? Where did you get these "stress levels" from? I'm beginning to suspect you don't speak English at all and you're doing everything through Google Translate from Japanese.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 16/05/2017 18:31:54
While we agree on the 60 degree angle we do not agree on the perpendicular view. The light from the bar right next to your position hits your eye first then it takes longer for the light from the other side where the bar attaches to the other train. So the view from the past position when the light left is behind you for the further distance light has to take to reach you.

Click on attached image to see the detail properly. Two lasers (the rectangles) are moving to the right. Light is being sent from the top of them when they are shown as A and B, exiting the bottom of those same lasers when they are shown as C and D. E shows the lower laser again later with light still again coming out of it.

At the bottom of the picture, an eye (a circle) is moving to the right, and we see the same eye four times. F and G show it with light entering it, while H and I show light (which entered the eye when it was at F and G) reaching the retina. The point at which the light hits the retina guarantees that the observer sees the laser perpendicular to the direction of movement of the co-moving trains (which these lasers and eye are travelling in).

You need to study this carefully and reassess your ideas about how things appear in situations of this kind. Note that you see the lower laser at D before you see it at E, and when you see it at E, you see the higher laser directly in line with it when it was at C - yes the light takes longer to reach your eye from that laser, but you see it on the same line as the nearer laser, and you see that line as being perpendicular to your direction of travel.

Quote
If you were in a train car with different people in the windows across from you at the same speed the faster your speed the further up you view the other train. That angle is the length contraction.

No. You're still mauling this. The length-contraction acting on the train is not visible to people on the train in any way and they see no distortion on anything co-moving with them at all.

Quote
There is no curve in light for SR (ok my SR).

If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 17/05/2017 11:56:21
If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.
Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed. How can you as a reasonable scientist claim to see 30 degrees off of a 90 degree physical position be viewed as perpendicular? Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.
While clocks oriented in any direction under half the speed of light coincide with the Lorentz contraction for the angle of view using plain geometry above that speed can not be tested with a clock. Math can go where reality cannot so we cannot depend on math to prove a point above our ability to test a theory. The angle of view fits the Lorentz contraction without physical contraction in SR. 30 degrees off of 90 is not a perpendicular view. The perpendicular view is the forward image that reaches your 90 degree position with vector velocity.

How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?

120 degrees is not 90 degrees.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 17/05/2017 13:18:57
If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.
Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed.

Light permeates isotropic in a linearity, there are no angles of light, the ''angles'' are subjective interpretation of geometrical position relative to light source. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 17/05/2017 17:58:59
Or angle from the image of an object. My point was a 120 degree angle will not be a 90 degree angle of view. If that is what's necessary for a theory of physical contraction vs. the same contraction by proper angle of view I am going with the angle of view causing the contraction.

There is no proof for physical contraction even with Muons. That is a reaction rate issue for the energy being slow to react. ~ 2% available energy to react vs. 98% used for velocity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 17/05/2017 18:24:44
If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.
Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed. How can you as a reasonable scientist claim to see 30 degrees off of a 90 degree physical position be viewed as perpendicular?

Why quote the bit you have and then talk about something different? If we're actually looking at the bit in the quote, light does indeed go out as a sphere from every point being viewed, and the part you see at any point in time depends on where your eye is within that sphere. The direction in which you see the part of an object from which a particular photon hits your retina depends on where on the retina it lands. Light coming to you on a path perpendicular to the track will enter through the iris, the eye will move, and then it will hit the retina further back, leading you to see that light as if it came from some angle ahead rather then the perpendicular path it actually came along. If you're looking at the train running parallel to you, any light that follows a perpendicular path between the trains (meaning genuinely perpendicular, following the lines of the sleepers), will have to come from further ahead. That light set out when the train you're looking at was further back with the part you're looking at directly to the side of where you are now, but the part you're looking at is by this time some way ahead, and you will see it as being some way ahead too, just as if you're looking straight at it on an angled path. But while you're seeing it where it actually is, you're seeing it as it was when it was further back but in the position where it now is.

Importantly though, when I was dealing with lasers, there is no sphere of light - there is only a narrow beam which doesn't widen over distance. My diagram showed you exactly how it works.

Quote
Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.

You are just repeating nonsense - where did you learn it? It's codswallop! The view of the other train from each train is completely undistorted at all speeds. It's only the view of things that aren't co-moving with you that look distorted to you, and my diagram shows you exactly why that is. If the light enters your iris and hits the middle of your retina, you will see that light as coming from the direction your eye is pointing in and not whatever direction it might actually have came from. The light leaves the laser at an angle that is different from the direction the laser is pointing in, and it enters the eye at a different angle from the angle the eye perceives it as having come from (for exactly the same reason as it doesn't follow the alignment of the laser).

Quote
While clocks oriented in any direction under half the speed of light coincide with the Lorentz contraction for the angle of view using plain geometry above that speed can not be tested with a clock. Math can go where reality cannot so we cannot depend on math to prove a point above our ability to test a theory. The angle of view fits the Lorentz contraction without physical contraction in SR. 30 degrees off of 90 is not a perpendicular view. The perpendicular view is the forward image that reaches your 90 degree position with vector velocity.

The MMX moves sufficiently fast through space for a lack of contraction to produce a result other than the null result, so reality has tested this already and shown that there is real contraction. It is not visual contraction, and your beliefs about how things appear are wildly wrong. I don't know where you picked up your knowledge, but if you didn't misunderstand what you read there, it must be one hell of a woeful site.

Quote
How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?

You can't convince religious people of anything - they just stick to their position no matter how irrational it is. I've shown you that without actual length-contraction you either have an MMX that doesn't produce the null result that it always comes up with, or you have light moving faster than the speed of light and should be able to use that to demonstrate superluminal communication. I have led the horse to water and it is not my responsibility if it dies of thirst.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 18/05/2017 11:58:05
Why quote the bit you have and then talk about something different? If we're actually looking at the bit in the quote, light does indeed go out as a sphere from every point being viewed, and the part you see at any point in time depends on where your eye is within that sphere. The direction in which you see the part of an object from which a particular photon hits your retina depends on where on the retina it lands. Light coming to you on a path perpendicular to the track will enter through the iris, the eye will move, and then it will hit the retina further back, leading you to see that light as if it came from some angle ahead rather then the perpendicular path it actually came along. If you're looking at the train running parallel to you, any light that follows a perpendicular path between the trains (meaning genuinely perpendicular, following the lines of the sleepers), will have to come from further ahead. That light set out when the train you're looking at was further back with the part you're looking at directly to the side of where you are now, but the part you're looking at is by this time some way ahead, and you will see it as being some way ahead too, just as if you're looking straight at it on an angled path. But while you're seeing it where it actually is, you're seeing it as it was when it was further back but in the position where it now is.

Then the angle of view gives you the contracted view and you can never see it where it exists physically. Rather than an observer lets consider a nano second shutter exposure or less. There will be no retina issues to confuse physical vs. visual contraction by the angle of view. If your view is the front of the other train at relative rest there is no further forward position as you increase speed only simultaneity of relativity which puts the view of the train in back of your position.

Quote
Importantly though, when I was dealing with lasers, there is no sphere of light - there is only a narrow beam which doesn't widen over distance. My diagram showed you exactly how it works.
It does widen with distance say to the moon
GOC
Quote
Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.
David
Quote
You are just repeating nonsense - where did you learn it? It's codswallop! The view of the other train from each train is completely undistorted at all speeds. It's only the view of things that aren't co-moving with you that look distorted to you, and my diagram shows you exactly why that is. If the light enters your iris and hits the middle of your retina, you will see that light as coming from the direction your eye is pointing in and not whatever direction it might actually have came from. The light leaves the laser at an angle that is different from the direction the laser is pointing in, and it enters the eye at a different angle from the angle the eye perceives it as having come from (for exactly the same reason as it doesn't follow the alignment of the laser).
The laser can not go perpendicular at relativistic speeds because light does not have momentum. Light is independent of the source. The train being the source and the position in space event being independent of the train. That codswallop is the postulate of Relativity.
Quote
The MMX moves sufficiently fast through space for a lack of contraction to produce a result other than the null result, so reality has tested this already and shown that there is real contraction. It is not visual contraction, and your beliefs about how things appear are wildly wrong. I don't know where you picked up your knowledge, but if you didn't misunderstand what you read there, it must be one hell of a woeful site.

I do not need a site for an explanation. It just logic of the postulates with an understanding the relativity math is correct while the reasons you are applying to the equations are incorrect. There is no momentum in light.

Quote
How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?
Quote
You can't convince religious people of anything - they just stick to their position no matter how irrational it is. I've shown you that without actual length-contraction you either have an MMX that doesn't produce the null result that it always comes up with, or you have light moving faster than the speed of light and should be able to use that to demonstrate superluminal communication. I have led the horse to water and it is not my responsibility if it dies of thirst.
Your explanation for a null result is not the only explanation. Light does not contract and motion compensates its distance in every direction. That is why a clock in any orientation ticks at the same rate. Are you thirsty yet?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 18/05/2017 16:49:22
You've been given plenty to work with and I'm not going to add to it. What is already here will remain here and it says it all.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 19/05/2017 12:37:52
Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 19/05/2017 13:52:27
Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.
I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

P.s @David:Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/05/2017 17:10:45
Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.
I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

It doesn't work that way - I showed that you either need to have actual length-contraction or you have to allow light to go faster than c. Two people incapable of taking that on board when a third person shows them how it works does not make the two right - it is not a democratic system, but one of reason, and reason is something the two can't handle. Neither of you are able to explain how you keep two light clocks in a train ticking at the same rate when one is aligned with the direction of travel of the train and the other is aligned perpendicular to it. You both maintain your state of ignorance by steadfastly refusing to explore that and by ignoring the numbers that I've given you to show that you're wrong. How long does it take for the light to get from the back of the 10cm-long carriage to the front if you don't length-contract the carriage? How long does it take to get back? What's the total time? If the perpendicular light clock is also 10cm long (it would stick out the side of the carriage, but that's okay), how long does light take to do a round trip on that? Pick a speed and crunch the numbers. Until you do that, you have no credibility whatsoever. Do you understand how ridiculous the pair of you look when you refuse to check even the most basic aspects of relativity?

Quote
Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.

I'll be happy to explore that in detail AFTER you give me numbers to show that length-contraction isn't needed for the light clock in the carriage (the one that sends light from the back end of the carriage to the front end and back again). Prove to me that you're capable of doing real science.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 19/05/2017 17:57:24
Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.
I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

It doesn't work that way - I showed that you either need to have actual length-contraction or you have to allow light to go faster than c. Two people incapable of taking that on board when a third person shows them how it works does not make the two right - it is not a democratic system, but one of reason, and reason is something the two can't handle. Neither of you are able to explain how you keep two light clocks in a train ticking at the same rate when one is aligned with the direction of travel of the train and the other is aligned perpendicular to it. You both maintain your state of ignorance by steadfastly refusing to explore that and by ignoring the numbers that I've given you to show that you're wrong. How long does it take for the light to get from the back of the 10cm-long carriage to the front if you don't length-contract the carriage? How long does it take to get back? What's the total time? If the perpendicular light clock is also 10cm long (it would stick out the side of the carriage, but that's okay), how long does light take to do a round trip on that? Pick a speed and crunch the numbers. Until you do that, you have no credibility whatsoever. Do you understand how ridiculous the pair of you look when you refuse to check even the most basic aspects of relativity?

Quote
Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.

I'll be happy to explore that in detail AFTER you give me numbers to show that length-contraction isn't needed for the light clock in the carriage (the one that sends light from the back end of the carriage to the front end and back again). Prove to me that you're capable of doing real science.

Ok, that ''knocked'' me back a bit. Can you please find me a video on youtube that shows the example of light you are on about?

Then I will answer the ''problem'' and become a ''masterclass'' in science just for you :D

added - ok I have drawn you , your explanation, The two lines represent the length of the train carriage, between the lines light is permeating isotropic as you can see.

What would you like to  know?

Or what are you saying happens?
* ctrain.jpg (9.71 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 2042 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 19/05/2017 18:08:39
David,

   The technology is not available to accelerate mass at relativistic speeds (except for a few atoms so the relativistic speeds are not verified in the range you are discussing. But for half the speed of light at a 30 degree angle the view is contracted by 0.866025 in plain geometry. Your idea about the lens in your eye reproducing the perpendicular view is very unlikely. So we have a visual length contraction by the angle of view exactly the same as what you suggest is the physical length contraction. We already have the visual contraction so we also have a physical contraction? Above half the speed of light clock direction could be important for tick rate. But physical contraction is extremely unlikely since up to half the speed of light is a visual contraction by the postulates of relativity using plain geometry of light being independent of the source.

You were not clear on that point. Do you disagree that a angle of view different from perpendicular is visually shorter?
Avoidance of that question suggests you are not willing to go down the logic route in favor of your beliefs.

If up to half the speed of light is visual there is no logic to the other half being physical. Relativity has a linearity issue with direction of mass to light above half the speed of light.

the box

Physics does not care if we have an accurate understanding or not. A vote will not change physics only the minds of the followers of their view. The BB had a vote of 12 to one in favor of the BB theory. BH's prove the existence of the universe much older than 13.6 billion years.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 19/05/2017 18:14:22
David,

   The technology is not available to accelerate mass at relativistic speeds (except for a few atoms so the relativistic speeds are not verified in the range you are discussing. But for half the speed of light at a 30 degree angle the view is contracted by 0.866025 in plain geometry. Your idea about the lens in your eye reproducing the perpendicular view is very unlikely. So we have a visual length contraction by the angle of view exactly the same as what you suggest is the physical length contraction. We already have the visual contraction so we also have a physical contraction? Above half the speed of light clock direction could be important for tick rate. But physical contraction is extremely unlikely since up to half the speed of light is a visual contraction by the postulates of relativity using plain geometry of light being independent of the source.

You were not clear on that point. Do you disagree that a angle of view different from perpendicular is visually shorter?
Avoidance of that question suggests you are not willing to go down the logic route in favor of your beliefs.

If up to half the speed of light is visual there is no logic to the other half being physical. Relativity has a linearity issue with direction of mass to light above half the speed of light.

the box

Physics does not care if we have an accurate understanding or not. A vote will not change physics only the minds of the followers of their view. The BB had a vote of 12 to one in favor of the BB theory. BH's prove the existence of the universe much older than 13.6 billion years.

Would 13.6 billion years be based on our calendar?   If so problem because that would equal earths orbit of the Sun time.


P.s Obviously they didn't have a random ''jury'' when voting on the BB. A scientific ''jury'' may be biased.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 19/05/2017 18:25:57
I wonder if ''they'' are going to be smart enough to realise that I am using the very pixels of your screen you are viewing naked Science on, to accurately show the nature of light and to try to get ''them'' to realise the errors in ''their'' wisdom and thoughts!


I predict David is going to suggest an imaginary light beam or ''photon'' travelling left to right and vice versus, however then we need to add a medium that can reflect the light so we can actually observe the beam/''photon'' travelling left to right and vice versus.
However David will not account that the 2d interpretation of the thought , the light from the screen and laser or beam or photon is travelling also directly at your eyes.

* ctrain1.jpg (60.28 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 2021 times)

David does not ''see'' this until now!

So David anything to  add?  because we all know light travelling vector x is equal to light travelling vector y when c is constant.

* dc.jpg (33.8 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 2011 times)








Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/05/2017 19:44:20
GoC and Box

You both need to crunch the numbers properly. The speeds of travel I've used for examples are deliberately huge in order to make diagrams show angle differences that at slower speeds wouldn't show up unless you were to make the diagrams as big as a planet. But the numbers can also be crunched for lower speeds, such as the speed the speed of a lab sitting on a rotating Earth as it orbits the sun - that is what the MMX used and it had to change it's physical length in order to produce the null result. If you want to work with appropriate numbers for that, feel free to do so. Light cannot make the round trip on an uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel as quickly as on a light clock perpendicular to it, and so long as you remain in denial on that point, you are just going to go on blocking your own progress so that you can dig in and go on spouting nonsense. It is not my job to sort out your problems though - I have more important priorities.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/05/2017 20:20:42
30 km/s (or 67,000 mph) is the speed you want to work with. Move the train at that speed and work out how long light will take to make a round trip in a 10cm light clock in the train aligned in the direction of travel and how long light will take to do the same thing on an identical light clock aligned perpendicular to the train. You should already realise though that if length-contraction is necessary at 0.867c, 0.5c, 0.1c, etc. it will still be necessary at 0.0001c.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 20/05/2017 13:18:27
30 km/s (or 67,000 mph) is the speed you want to work with. Move the train at that speed and work out how long light will take to make a round trip in a 10cm light clock in the train aligned in the direction of travel and how long light will take to do the same thing on an identical light clock aligned perpendicular to the train. You should already realise though that if length-contraction is necessary at 0.867c, 0.5c, 0.1c, etc. it will still be necessary at 0.0001c.

Why do you think length contraction is necessary ?  I actually think the ''parlour'' trick means nothing.  You are trying to get myself and Goc to accept force belief by including parlour tricks.  You are being subjective by your education and forced educational belief.
What you need to understand is that what works in science is not necessarily interpreted correctly. The maths always work because the maths was made to fit the process, the process comes first.

You quite clearly are not thinking about anything I have just put, you have not even explained to  me your ''question'', I am second guessing you at the moment.
I can tell you now that all ''your'' thought experiments involving light are incorrect.

Please tell me why we should believe your subjective interpretation when our objective interpretations say you are incorrect?

Now maybe if you discussed what we are saying instead of thinking that what you think is right, then maybe yourself will see why it is incorrect.

To think up anything it is always easier to work with the smallest measurement, so I will discuss your train in simple form.

The train carriage L=299 792 458m

0m____________________________299 792 458 m

Light takes 1 second to travel left to right and 1 second to travel right to left at a constant of 299 792 458 m / s

Do you disagree with any of that?

The rest length of the carriage is 299 792 458 m

The length of the carriage in motion is 299 792 458 m

Do you disagree with any of that?

* c2.jpg (23.32 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1954 times)


Then If you look at the previous diagram of the distance contraction, this is what your interpretation mistake is.  The trains rear moves ''forward'' , the light takes less time to get there than previous train rear position.

Relative correctness

* c3.jpg (30.4 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1953 times)

* radio.jpg (31.79 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1944 times)


p.s So David if you want to lock horns in battle with me, you need a lot more than subjective interpretation that fails on every level.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/05/2017 14:34:19
David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction. Your point about the math is not at issue. I agree with the Lorentz contraction along with the physical consequences for view and change in clock tick rate. Up to half the speed of light any orientation of the mirrors in the light clock allow the same tick rate. Scientists like yourself are confusing contraction of view as the reason for a slower tick rate by physically contracting the clock. There is no mechanism to physically contract the clock. Only math that follows observations. Math is never the cause of physics but that is what you are claiming by physical object contraction.

I know you have the intelligence to understand plain geometry but you have a block that will not let you confirm the math of light being finite and independent of the source. You e en made up something about the iris in the eyes so you could remain faithful to what you were incorrectly taught. I was taught the same thing but rather than a follower I have to work out these issues for myself. When I did following the relativity postulates showed a visual contraction rather than a physical contraction. You need to think for yourself rather than let others think for you. Most scientists just go with their programing. Half the speed of light should be the easiest to understand for most scientists. The box showed you the diagram of event position in space relative to an objects velocity at 180 degrees. You are just going to confuse yourself using laser light so we are using normal imaging where you can view an image in all  positions and the image light goes in all angles. For instance a bulb lights up a room and you can view the light from any angle in that room.

Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view? Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object. So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length. Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity. We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2. But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6. We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

Unless of course you are not following relativity's postulates.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 20/05/2017 15:28:56
David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction. Your point about the math is not at issue. I agree with the Lorentz contraction along with the physical consequences for view and change in clock tick rate. Up to half the speed of light any orientation of the mirrors in the light clock allow the same tick rate. Scientists like yourself are confusing contraction of view as the reason for a slower tick rate by physically contracting the clock. There is no mechanism to physically contract the clock. Only math that follows observations. Math is never the cause of physics but that is what you are claiming by physical object contraction.

I know you have the intelligence to understand plain geometry but you have a block that will not let you confirm the math of light being finite and independent of the source. You e en made up something about the iris in the eyes so you could remain faithful to what you were incorrectly taught. I was taught the same thing but rather than a follower I have to work out these issues for myself. When I did following the relativity postulates showed a visual contraction rather than a physical contraction. You need to think for yourself rather than let others think for you. Most scientists just go with their programing. Half the speed of light should be the easiest to understand for most scientists. The box showed you the diagram of event position in space relative to an objects velocity at 180 degrees. You are just going to confuse yourself using laser light so we are using normal imaging where you can view an image in all  positions and the image light goes in all angles. For instance a bulb lights up a room and you can view the light from any angle in that room.

Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view? Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object. So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length. Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity. We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2. But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6. We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

Unless of course you are not following relativity's postulates.

Thank you Goc, your understanding is also very good. 

However you must try to see past what an angle actual is .  An angle is not actually an angle , it is always a linearity and either 0 degrees or 360 degrees relative to observer and observed. Space has no direction , angles are always a linearity but angled relative to something else.

I will show you this in very simple form .

* angle1.jpg (39.08 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1917 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/05/2017 15:37:55
Light always travels linear but an object's view is always relative to the angle of view. To understand take a coin and rotate the angle for visual length. That is all I am talking about as an images visual length.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 20/05/2017 15:47:38
Light always travels linear but an object's view is always relative to the angle of view. To understand take a coin and rotate the angle for visual length. That is all I am talking about as an images visual length.
  Yes I understand what you are talking about, let me add your coin view as a good example.

* bw.jpg (32.22 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1913 times)

I am now trying to help you extend on your thoughts, look at my side by side previous diagrams, focus diagram 1 as a whole observing relative angle .

Observe diagram 2 by only looking at one of the points a,b.c, or d, notice there is no angle if you observe each point individually.

(The background is never angled relative to anything.Things are only angled relative to each other and the reference frame background being your constant frame).

p.s the observer is always at the center of determining angles relative to themselves and other bodies (0)



* 0.jpg (32.98 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1912 times)

added note- spheres do not  visually contract when rotating, they retain their diameter! However their circumference visually contracts as they recede from an observer.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 20/05/2017 16:16:07
Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view? Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object. So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length. Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity. We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2. But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6. We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

Unless of course you are not following relativity's postulates.

Goc in your example you are doing the same exact same thing as they are doing ignoring your own relative correctness that light permeates isotropic and the view you are creating by observer affect of adding mirrors and angling the path is not the natural nature of light and subjective ''parlour tricks''.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/05/2017 19:15:38
Then If you look at the previous diagram of the distance contraction, this is what your interpretation mistake is.  The trains rear moves ''forward'' , the light takes less time to get there than previous train rear position.

p.s So David if you want to lock horns in battle with me, you need a lot more than subjective interpretation that fails on every level.

You have shown me the light going from the front of the carriage to the rear. Where is your analysis of light going from the rear to the front? Where is your analysis of the time taken for the round trip (with the rear to front and front to rear parts added together)? If you ever get to the point where you do the job proplerly, you will find that your light has to go faster than c to complete the round trip in the required time unless you contract the length of the train.

And to do the job properly, you need to do the same job for the perpendicular light clock too so that you can compare how long it takes for light to complete the round trip on both light clocks. The times will not match unless you either introduce actual length-contraction or have light move faster than c.

Until you do that and take the results on board, you will continue to be doing pseudo-science rather than the real thing.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 20/05/2017 19:45:12
Then If you look at the previous diagram of the distance contraction, this is what your interpretation mistake is.  The trains rear moves ''forward'' , the light takes less time to get there than previous train rear position.

p.s So David if you want to lock horns in battle with me, you need a lot more than subjective interpretation that fails on every level.

You have shown me the light going from the front of the carriage to the rear. Where is your analysis of light going from the rear to the front? Where is your analysis of the time taken for the round trip (with the rear to front and front to rear parts added together)? If you ever get to the point where you do the job proplerly, you will find that your light has to go faster than c to complete the round trip in the required time unless you contract the length of the train.

And to do the job properly, you need to do the same job for the perpendicular light clock too so that you can compare how long it takes for light to complete the round trip on both light clocks. The times will not match unless you either introduce actual length-contraction or have light move faster than c.

Until you do that and take the results on board, you will continue to be doing pseudo-science rather than the real thing.

Complete garbage , you can mirror the diagram for the other direction if you like but the result is still the same, you quite clearly do not understand anything except what education learned you. The light does not have to go faster, where on earth did you get that notion from?

Do you not understand the very simple diagrams of the rear and front of the carriage displacement relative to where and when the light was emitted?

That is your contraction you don't understand.

The light takes 2 seconds for the round trip, the carriage does not even need be there because light can pass right through the carriage .
* c4.jpg (24.07 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1978 times)





Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/05/2017 23:42:41
David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction.

What you mean is, he too misunderstands length-contraction.

Quote
Your point about the math is not at issue. I agree with the Lorentz contraction along with the physical consequences for view and change in clock tick rate. Up to half the speed of light any orientation of the mirrors in the light clock allow the same tick rate.

You don't even appear to understand half of it. There is nothing different about things going under half the speed of light to differentiate it from things going faster than that speed. There is a slowing of clocks moving at all non-zero speeds through space and there needs to be length contraction in the direction of travel at all non-zero speeds to keep a pair of light clocks ticking at the same rate. In the case of the MMX (which is equivalent to a pair of light clocks) the length contraction on the biggest MMX experiment done to date was a micron. A micron is huge - it takes 10,000 atoms in the material of the apparatus to span it. The direction of travel of the apparatus consistently shortened the arms by up to that amount as required to maintain a null result at all times. For the laws of physics to coordinate things with such precision at 30km/s it is not credible to think that it then throws away the mechanism for higher speeds to rely on voodoo instead (so that light can travel faster than c).

Quote
Scientists like yourself are confusing contraction of view as the reason for a slower tick rate by physically contracting the clock. There is no mechanism to physically contract the clock. Only math that follows observations. Math is never the cause of physics but that is what you are claiming by physical object contraction.

Length-contraction is not needed to slow the perpendicular light clock (perpendicular to its direction of movement through space). The longer path for light to travel to complete a tick on the perpendicular clock ties in exactly with how much the clock slows as you move it through space. Length-contraction is needed on the other clock aligned with its direction of travel, and without it you're sunk.

Quote
I know you have the intelligence to understand plain geometry but you have a block that will not let you confirm the math of light being finite and independent of the source.

The block is all yours - you steadfastly refuse to challenge your existing beliefs, but instead you dig in to defend them.

Quote
You even made up something about the iris in the eyes so you could remain faithful to what you were incorrectly taught. I was taught the same thing but rather than a follower I have to work out these issues for myself.

I wasn't taught most of it, but worked it out for myself too. Fortunately I got the details right where you went wrong, which is why what I showed you in the diagram works whereas your magical ideas don't match up to reality. You have invented a whole stack of visual distortions that don't exist in this universe.

Quote
When I did following the relativity postulates showed a visual contraction rather than a physical contraction.

You fooled yourself into thinking that, and you're so emotionally tied to your creation that you refuse to recognise that it doesn't fit the real world.

Quote
You need to think for yourself rather than let others think for you.

Do I sound like someone who lets other people think for me? If I was, I'd be pushing SR and chanting establishment mantras. You're the most bizarre person I've ever encountered though, because you are actually going around backing up SR on the basis of the most extraordinary pile of pants of your own invention which barely has anything in common with SR at all.

Quote
Most scientists just go with their programing. Half the speed of light should be the easiest to understand for most scientists. The box showed you the diagram of event position in space relative to an objects velocity at 180 degrees. You are just going to confuse yourself using laser light so we are using normal imaging where you can view an image in all  positions and the image light goes in all angles. For instance a bulb lights up a room and you can view the light from any angle in that room.

Perhaps if you used a circle of outward-pointing lasers, you'd have a better understanding of how light actually behaves. Each beam can be thought of as representing the journey of a photon. By thinking down this route, you might be able to stop confusing yourself with what happens when you lump them all together and call it a sphere of expanding light.

Quote
Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Lovely - just like the vertical arm on my interactive MMX demonstrations (a different speed, but working on the exact same rules), so what makes you think I do things differently for the perpendicular case?

Quote
Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view?

But here's the point where we diverge. You now go into some voodoo where you misinterpret what's going on. The angle the light goes at simply increases the distance it has to move through space to travel from one mirror to the other and back, and that extra distance the light has to travel means that the light takes longer to get from one mirror to the other and back, and the clock ticks are therefore more spaced out in time. That is all that happens to make the clock run slow - the light runs at full speed in the clock but the tick rate of the clock is slower due to the delay from the extra distance travelled by the light.

Quote
Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object.

And your voodoo takes the form of warped "views". There are no warped views though - everything continues to look completely normal for anyone who is moving with the clock. A laser sending light at that 30 degree angle is aligned perpendicular to the direction of its (the laser's) travel, and the eye of an observer (co-moving with the laser) receiving that light will perceive it as coming in on the perpendicular too.

Quote
So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length.

So far it has no relevance to the length at all - that only comes in when you deal with light clocks aligned at angles other than perpendicular to their direction of travel.

Quote
Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Correct.

Quote
Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity.

At last!

Quote
We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2.

And that's a longer path for light to travel per tick than on the perpendicular light clock, so the light clocks don't tick at the same rate.

Quote
But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6.

But you need to explain all the stuff you've just done there. What exactly is this 2/3 travel distance; why are you dividing it by 2; why are you subtracting it from the 2 2/3; and why are you dividing 2 1/3 by 2? You already had the answer 2 2/3 for the light path, and the time light takes to cover that distance is the time between clock ticks for that clock.

Quote
We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds

The MMX tests it for 30km/s and shows length contraction. Why should physics make it contract in that way for slower speeds and fail to do so for higher speeds? We have particle accelerators in which particles are sent at speeds close to c, and this impacts on the time it takes for them to decay, lengthening their lifespans many times over, with the statistics on this following the predictions of the model. These particles have a "clock" in the form of a mechanism which runs slow when they move at high speed, but it runs slow in the way predicted by a perpendicular light clock and not an uncontracted light clock aligned with the direction of travel, so do all these particles magically hold their "clock" perpendicular to their direction of travel at all times or do they conform to the rules of the model by length-contracting themselves?

Quote
but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds...

Why do you think light can't completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds? When we use the term "relativistic speed", it's a bit of a woolly one - there's no actual dividing place between relativistic speeds and non-relativistic speeds. The same rule about length-contraction applies to all non-zero speeds, but can usually be ignored when we're doing ordinary stuff like ballistics because the errors are too small to care about. And, if you have a light in the middle of a room in a rocket, there is nothing to stop a light illuminating that wall at any speed, including 0.0000000000001c and 0.999999999999c, and the illumination would appear to be the same in both those cases for anyone inside that room.

Quote
and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

Indeed, but you have to get both your clocks to tick at the same rate to match up with what the null result of MMX shows you, and you can't do that without actual length-contraction.

Quote
You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

There is no "contracted view" of this - it is an invention of your own which doesn't relate to reality. All you've done is deny that actual length-contraction happens on the basis that the experiment has never been done at high speeds where the diagrams show clearly that it's needed, but you've failed to understand that actual length-contraction is still needed at slow speeds at which experiments have been done. Instead of recognising that need, you've come up with a hocus pocus of contracted views that don't explain how you keep your light clocks ticking at the same rate without having light go faster than c on one of them.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/05/2017 23:57:35
Complete garbage , you can mirror the diagram for the other direction if you like but the result is still the same, you quite clearly do not understand anything except what education learned you.

How does reversing the diagram fix it? The train would then be going in the wrong direction. I want you do move the carriage to the right and show the light moving to the right too. Once you've got your head round that really difficult idea, maybe you can start to wonder how long it will take for light to get from the back of the carriage to the front.

Quote
The light does not have to go faster, where on earth did you get that notion from?

How can you have got this far and still not understood where that notion comes from. Do the maths on how long it takes for light to catch the front of the carriage while chasing it from the back of the carriage. Important clue: the front of the carriage is moving away from the light and not towards it. Do the maths on that, then combine it with our maths for light going in the opposite direction from the front of the carriage to the back end (with the back end rushing forwards to meet the light). Add the two lengths of time together, and bingo! You should have a time value for the round trip. That time value will be longer than for a tick of an identical light clock perpendicular to the train (moving along with the train). Why have you still not done this?

Quote
Do you not understand the very simple diagrams of the rear and front of the carriage displacement relative to where and when the light was emitted?

That is your contraction you don't understand.

The problem is entirely with your lack of understanding, as demonstrated by your failure to get the direction of the train right.

Quote
The light takes 2 seconds for the round trip, the carriage does not even need be there because light can pass right through the carriage .

If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 00:02:50
David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction.


Quote
What you mean is, he too misunderstands length-contraction.
That is not what I ''said'', Goc understands but in trying to show you why you are wrong, he is wrongly showing you why you are wrong by using the same 2 dimension thoughts as yourself .

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 00:05:39



Quote
The light takes 2 seconds for the round trip, the carriage does not even need be there because light can pass right through the carriage .

If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.

No, the light takes two seconds, you are really not thinking for yourself about the diagrams. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 00:06:45
Complete garbage , you can mirror the diagram for the other direction if you like but the result is still the same, you quite clearly do not understand anything except what education learned you.

How does reversing the diagram fix it? The train would then be going in the wrong direction. I want you do move the carriage to the right and show the light moving to the right too. Once you've got your head round that really difficult idea, maybe you can start to wonder how long it will take for light to get from the back of the carriage to the front.

Quote
The light does not have to go faster, where on earth did you get that notion from?

How can you have got this far and still not understood where that notion comes from. Do the maths on how long it takes for light to catch the front of the carriage while chasing it from the back of the carriage. Important clue: the front of the carriage is moving away from the light and not towards it. Do the maths on that, then combine it with our maths for light going in the opposite direction from the front of the carriage to the back end (with the back end rushing forwards to meet the light). Add the two lengths of time together, and bingo! You should have a time value for the round trip. That time value will be longer than for a tick of an identical light clock perpendicular to the train (moving along with the train). Why have you still not done this?

Quote
Do you not understand the very simple diagrams of the rear and front of the carriage displacement relative to where and when the light was emitted?

That is your contraction you don't understand.

The problem is entirely with your lack of understanding, as demonstrated by your failure to get the direction of the train right.

Quote
The light takes 2 seconds for the round trip, the carriage does not even need be there because light can pass right through the carriage .

If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.


You are not understanding, I think it may be beyond you, no insult intended.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 00:08:26
Quote
How can you have got this far and still not understood where that notion comes from. Do the maths on how long it takes for light to catch the front of the carriage while chasing it from the back of the carriage. Important clue: the front of the carriage is moving away from the light and not towards it. Do the maths on that, then combine it with our maths for light going in the opposite direction from the front of the carriage to the back end (with the back end rushing forwards to meet the light). Add the two lengths of time together, and bingo! You should have a time value for the round trip. That time value will be longer than for a tick of an identical light clock perpendicular to the train (moving along with the train). Why have you still not done this?
2 seconds round trip, you are doing it wrongly

* signal.jpg (43.78 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1923 times)

The drawing is not your scenario, it is to get you to understand how wrong you are.


Relative correctness( I have drawn you a diagram, study it , understand where you are going wrong.


* dx1.jpg (40.77 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1924 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/05/2017 02:07:54
Here's the root of your misunderstanding. Look at your diagram again - I've replaced parts of it with my own lines and named them A, B and C (in blue text). The length of A added to the length of B comes to twice the length of C. That's your 1.2 + 0.8 = 2.

However, what you've still failed to grasp after all this time is that if the light is taking 1.2 seconds to make the trip from the rear to the front of the carriage, the carriage will move further during that part of the trip for the light than it does on the return journey from the front to the rear where the light makes that trip in only 0.8 seconds, so the carriage moves less far during that part of the trip. You have it moving the same distance for both parts of the light's journey, which means you aren't moving the train at a constant speed. The maths of this is a teeny weeny bit more complicated than you realise.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 12:06:07
Here's the root of your misunderstanding. Look at your diagram again - I've replaced parts of it with my own lines and named them A, B and C (in blue text). The length of A added to the length of B comes to twice the length of C. That's your 1.2 + 0.8 = 2.

However, what you've still failed to grasp after all this time is that if the light is taking 1.2 seconds to make the trip from the rear to the front of the carriage, the carriage will move further during that part of the trip for the light than it does on the return journey from the front to the rear where the light makes that trip in only 0.8 seconds, so the carriage moves less far during that part of the trip. You have it moving the same distance for both parts of the light's journey, which means you aren't moving the train at a constant speed. The maths of this is a teeny weeny bit more complicated than you realise.

Quite clearly you have failed to understand  the diagram which is very correct and did not need no edit from yourself.
let us remove the train carriage so David can understand.

A:_______________________________________________________

B:_______________________________________________________

C:_______________________________________________________

there you go can you understand now?

David ignores that light can pass through things. David ignores that the surface of the train wall does not even reflect light and we would have to add mirrors and a medium.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 12:33:22
I am still waiting for you to explain what suppose to be the problem?  It is relative straight forward.   Light is emitted from one point of the train, (the rear or front).

The train is in motion relative to the lights motion, the light travels less distance and more distance in a round trip because the rear is moving forward contracting the distance the light has to travel, the front recedes away from the light so it has to travel further.

Nothing more to it.

Event 1:light emitted, travelling left to right

Event 2:train moving relative forward

Event 3: spacial distance contracting between the light and train rear

Event 4: reflection and return trip

Event 5: The front of the train recedes away from the chasing light

Event 6: the light eventually catches up with the front

Event 7: -t/dxcdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif+t/dxe0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=t/dx

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/05/2017 18:21:54
Box,

The reason I reworked your diagram a little was to put names on some of the lines to make it easier to refer to them. I've added a new line called D to the latest version of the diagram for the same reason.

You say you have the world's greatest mind, so you really should have got it by now. You have the train moving distance D in 1.2 seconds while light is moving from the rear to the front, and you also have the train moving distance D in 0.8 seconds while light is moving the other way from the front to the rear. That means your train is suddenly going 1.5 times the speed it was for the first leg of the light's journey.

To do things properly, you need to keep the train's speed the same throughout, which means that if it takes 1.2 seconds for light to go from the rear to the front (covering the distance A) while the train moves forwards by the distance D, the train will only move 2/3 D in the 0.8 seconds which you allow for the light to travel backwards (covering the distance B). By the end of that time, the light has not reached the rear as the rear is still 1/3 D further away. You need to let the light and train move a bit further before your clock tick is complete, so it will be longer than 2 seconds.

This is really basic stuff that you've messed up - your foundation is not properly laid and everything else that you've built on top of it will need to be reassessed once you've corrected this fault to make sure that it is sound.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 19:24:38
Box,

The reason I reworked your diagram a little was to put names on some of the lines to make it easier to refer to them. I've added a new line called D to the latest version of the diagram for the same reason.

You say you have the world's greatest mind, so you really should have got it by now. You have the train moving distance D in 1.2 seconds while light is moving from the rear to the front, and you also have the train moving distance D in 0.8 seconds while light is moving the other way from the front to the rear. That means your train is suddenly going 1.5 times the speed it was for the first leg of the light's journey.

To do things properly, you need to keep the train's speed the same throughout, which means that if it takes 1.2 seconds for light to go from the rear to the front (covering the distance A) while the train moves forwards by the distance D, the train will only move 2/3 D in the 0.8 seconds which you allow for the light to travel backwards (covering the distance B). By the end of that time, the light has not reached the rear as the rear is still 1/3 D further away. You need to let the light and train move a bit further before your clock tick is complete, so it will be longer than 2 seconds.

This is really basic stuff that you've messed up - your foundation is not properly laid and everything else that you've built on top of it will need to be reassessed once you've corrected this fault to make sure that it is sound.
#


The times were just an example and not exact, I was trying to show you why and where you are going wrong but obviously it has not sunk in. 
It is sound I assure you, I am not a scientist and do not get paid for my time or even get any sort of respect, so forgive me for not trying too hard with the ''maths''.
I could probably calculate an exact if I wanted to, I already have all of the parameters involved.
The point is the scenario means nothing, it is a poorly thought, thought experiment, no maths really required to observe the result.
I did you the formula , what more do you want?

Event 7:
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 19:34:02
Pfff , 'they'' making me work hard.

Ok the train is travelling at half the speed of light.

The trains length is l=299 792 458 m

In 1 second the rear of the train has travelled 149896229 meters


ok so far?

* t1.jpg (19.71 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1859 times)

* t2.jpg (27.85 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1845 times)

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 19:49:06
Pfff , 'they'' making me work hard.

Ok the train is travelling at half the speed of light.

The trains length is l=299 792 458 m

In 1 second the rear of the train has travelled 149896229 meters


ok so far?

* t1.jpg (19.71 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1859 times)

* t2.jpg (27.85 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1845 times)

* t3.jpg (36.51 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1843 times)

* t4.jpg (37.73 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1834 times)



t(c)cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif/dx1+dx2=1.s
t(c)e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif/dx1+dx2=1.s

My train has glass walls if it helps you understand.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/05/2017 20:13:45
At rest c/dxcdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif=1.s

At rest c/dxe0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=1.s

In motion c/dxcdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif=1.5s

in motion c/dxe0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=0.5s

Reason : distance contraction and distance expansion of points relative to the velocity of light.

ok?

p.s providing the train stops after one positional change, otherwise my times are off slightly if the train is continuous in motion. However positional my times are quite accurate . (I hope lol).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 00:43:13
The times were just an example and not exact, I was trying to show you why and where you are going wrong but obviously it has not sunk in.

How was I wrong for telling you that the time taken is greater than two seconds when you claimed it wasn't? You now appear to have seen the light though, so let's press ahead.

Quote
It is sound I assure you, I am not a scientist and do not get paid for my time or even get any sort of respect, so forgive me for not trying too hard with the ''maths''.

Do you think someone's paying me to run this remedial class? Do you think this maths is hard? This is the easy stuff.

Quote
I could probably calculate an exact if I wanted to, I already have all of the parameters involved.

Why have you never done it? Why wait till now? I've been setting examples in front of you in which the extra distance light has to travel in an uncontracted carriage would lead to a light clock ticking four times less often than a stationary clock due to the light path being four times as long and you've told me that that can't happen. For example,

I said,

Quote
If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.

and you replied,

Quote
No, the light takes two seconds, you are really not thinking for yourself about the diagrams.

Even with the much more modest speeds of travel in other examples, length-contraction has a crucial role in reducing the length of the path light has to follow from rear to front and back again in order to keep the light clock in sync with a perpendicular light clock (which itself runs slower than a stationary clock). This is all necessary to account for the null result of MMX, but you've been writing it all off as nonsense while claiming neither light clock is slowed.

Quote
The point is the scenario means nothing, it is a poorly thought, thought experiment, no maths really required to observe the result.

It's a well thought out experiment which directly illustrates how lengths of light paths are increased by movement of clocks. How the blazes do you imagine it can be explored otherwise?

Quote
I did you the formula , what more do you want?

I don't want anything from you at all. It's entirely up to you how much you want to understand and how much you are happy to go on misunderstanding. I'm simply offering you help with getting your head around it if you're prepared to put in the necessary effort (which isn't greatly taxing at this stage). If you want to understand length contraction, you need to work through the numbers by looking at a light clock aligned with a moving vehicle. If you want to understand the slowing of apparent time, you need to do the same kine of work with a perpendicular light clock to find out how much extra distance light has to travel on that if the vehicle is moving.

Here are my numbers for a vehicle moving at 0.5c:-

Length of vehicle = d

Time for light to travel distance d = t

Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t

Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

Distance light has moved by this point = 2d

Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d

Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d

We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t. The light has moved 2 2/3d through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d, which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.

Do your numbers match mine? If not, why not? Let's see if we can get agreement on this before we go on to look at the perpendicular clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 00:59:19
The times were just an example and not exact, I was trying to show you why and where you are going wrong but obviously it has not sunk in.



How was I wrong for telling you that the time taken is greater than two seconds when you claimed it wasn't? You now appear to have seen the light though, so let's press ahead.

Quote
It is sound I assure you, I am not a scientist and do not get paid for my time or even get any sort of respect, so forgive me for not trying too hard with the ''maths''.

Do you think someone's paying me to run this remedial class? Do you think this maths is hard? This is the easy stuff.

Quote
I could probably calculate an exact if I wanted to, I already have all of the parameters involved.

Why have you never done it? Why wait till now? I've been setting examples in front of you in which the extra distance light has to travel in an uncontracted carriage would lead to a light clock ticking four times less often than a stationary clock due to the light path being four times as long and you've told me that that can't happen. For example,

I said,

Quote
If it takes 2 seconds with the train stationary, it will take 8 seconds for the round trip with the train moving at 0.867c unless you contract the train to half its rest length, at which point it will take 4 seconds for the round trip, matching the 4 seconds taken for the round trip on an identical perpendicular clock moving with the train. You haven't even begun to explore this stuff.

and you replied,

Quote
No, the light takes two seconds, you are really not thinking for yourself about the diagrams.

Even with the much more modest speeds of travel in other examples, length-contraction has a crucial role in reducing the length of the path light has to follow from rear to front and back again in order to keep the light clock in sync with a perpendicular light clock (which itself runs slower than a stationary clock). This is all necessary to account for the null result of MMX, but you've been writing it all off as nonsense while claiming neither light clock is slowed.

Quote
The point is the scenario means nothing, it is a poorly thought, thought experiment, no maths really required to observe the result.

It's a well thought out experiment which directly illustrates how lengths of light paths are increased by movement of clocks. How the blazes do you imagine it can be explored otherwise?

Quote
I did you the formula , what more do you want?

I don't want anything from you at all. It's entirely up to you how much you want to understand and how much you are happy to go on misunderstanding. I'm simply offering you help with getting your head around it if you're prepared to put in the necessary effort (which isn't greatly taxing at this stage). If you want to understand length contraction, you need to work through the numbers by looking at a light clock aligned with a moving vehicle. If you want to understand the slowing of apparent time, you need to do the same kine of work with a perpendicular light clock to find out how much extra distance light has to travel on that if the vehicle is moving.

Here are my numbers for a vehicle moving at 0.5c:-

Length of vehicle = d

Time for light to travel distance d = t

Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t

Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

Distance light has moved by this point = 2d

Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d

Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d

We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t. The light has moved 2 2/3d through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d, which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.

Do your numbers match mine? If not, why not? Let's see if we can get agreement on this before we go on to look at the perpendicular clock.



You are hard to understand but you mention 1.5c so I guess we do not agree.  I will try to understand what you have put , in the meantime may I suggest you try to understand what I have put.

 Do you agree that a radio signal  is light?
Do you agree the radio signal can pass through the trains walls?
Do you agree that if we used a radio signal instead of ''light'' that there is no scenario to discuss?

The thing is you are still not doing it correctly.

Lets restart this and try to go at a slow pace taking one issue at a time into consideration. You say

''Length of vehicle = d''

Ok, are you happy at defining (d) to be 299 792 458 m in length at relative rest?

Do you agree that a round trip for light travelling  cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif then a return trip e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gifwould take 2 seconds?

* c5.jpg (23.62 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 1806 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: timey on 22/05/2017 01:45:27
According to the equivalence principle the laws of physics remain the same in each reference frame.  The reference frame that is travelling at 0.867c has the same laws of physics as the stationary frame.  The stationary frame measures the moving frame as length contracted, but the moving frame measures itself as being the same length as if it were stationary.  What is causing the differing measurements?

The stationary clock is ticking twice as fast as the moving clock.  The stationary frame measures the moving frame as per the tick rate of it's clock, where it concludes that in order to upkeep the constancy of the speed of light the moving frame must be length contracted, and the moving frame measures it's frame as per the tick rate of it's own clock and finds that there is no sign of any length contraction.   As an experiment the people in the moving frame decide to measure their moving frame as per the tick rate of the stationary clock and quickly come to the conclusion that the speed of light in their moving frame is holding itself relative to the tick rate of their moving clock...
They refer back to the equivalence principle to find that the laws of physical process are indeed the same in each reference frame where it would be silly to think that the speed of light in the moving frame would be held relative to a second as per a clock ticking in the stationary frame, when the clock in their own moving frame is ticking at half the rate of the clock in the stationary frame.

Here we are saying that the speed of light is constant in each frame, but that the length of a second that the speed of light is held relative to is different in differing frames resulting in length contraction being a consequence of trying to hold the speed of light as constant held relative to a static length second.

Same mathematical proportions, but laid out from a differing perspective...
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 09:38:00
According to the equivalence principle the laws of physics remain the same in each reference frame.  The reference frame that is travelling at 0.867c has the same laws of physics as the stationary frame.  The stationary frame measures the moving frame as length contracted, but the moving frame measures itself as being the same length as if it were stationary.  What is causing the differing measurements?


poor interpretation is what gives you messed up measures. The light travels less distance or more distance in different times as expected. The speed remains constant, nothing is contracted except the rear distance .
I am working on a diagram, just need to add some values.

* c-graph.jpg (52.24 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 2306 times)



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 22/05/2017 18:12:48
David,

   Sorry I have been very busy. Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light for a clock. Let's make the mirrors in the clock both perpendicular to and with the direction of motion. Obviously the same distance apart. The clock going 0.866025 we use the Gods eye again to start the photons from each mirror. We can divide 1 by 0.133 to get 7.5 of your centimeters for the light to reach the front mirror. We can also do the Pythagoras by squaring 0.866025 for the same distance of 7.5 as the ratio to 1 as the speed of light in the forward direction with vector velocity. The return light rounded off is about 0.57 relative to 1. 8.07 / 2 for the two way measurement of light. 4.035 cycle distance for the photon. Basically a 1/4 ratio 0.25 to 1. If we take the sq. rt. of 0.25 we get 0.5 vs. relative rest. This is what the Lorentz contraction represents.

Now when the forward direction of light hits the forward mirror the perpendicular light has not reached its mirror yet. The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

Explain why we need to contract the object physically? The visual contraction of the hypotenuse angle fits the contracted view. If it were also physically contracted it would not fit what is observed.

It's not that I wasn't taught the same thing you were its just that subjective thinking of physical contraction seems contrived.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 18:37:02


It's not that I wasn't taught the same thing you were its just that subjective thinking of physical contraction seems contrived.


I agree totally Goc, I have looked into this for a few days and can not even find any contraction and have no idea why they say there is a contraction when there is not.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 19:18:43
Do you agree that a radio signal  is light?

We can think of it as being the same thing, but we could leave all the doors open through the train and allow light to make the entire trip through it unhindered, so it's no problem either way.

Quote
Do you agree the radio signal can pass through the trains walls?

No problem.

Quote
Do you agree that if we used a radio signal instead of ''light'' that there is no scenario to discuss?

It's the same scenario.

Quote
The thing is you are still not doing it correctly.

No - if your numbers don't fit with mine, you've made an error somewhere, so let's see if we can find out where.

Quote
Lets restart this and try to go at a slow pace taking one issue at a time into consideration. You say

''Length of vehicle = d''

Ok, are you happy at defining (d) to be 299 792 458 m in length at relative rest?

Absolutely fine. Much easier to work with d though as we can then make it 1 (which means one multiple of 299,792,458 metres).

Quote
Do you agree that a round trip for light travelling  cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif then a return trip e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gifwould take 2 seconds?
[attachment id=0 msg=514855]

If the train's at rest, then yes, but not if it's moving.

So, if you want to tie your numbers into mine, let's take my solution and put yours alongside it within square brackets. I've filled in some of the values for you, so you now need to do the rest by replacing the "..." parts with your own numbers:-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= ...s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


(If you have difficulty understanding step seven, we work out the closing speed by adding the speed of light to the speed of the train because that tells us how long either of them would take to hit the other if the other was stationary. This is a short cut which is useful because it avoids doing multiple additions as we move the light a bit towards the rear of the train and the back of the train half as far towards the train - if you try to work out the answer that way it becomes an ordeal of trial and error as you don't know how far to move either of them to get them to the point where they will collide. Feel free to use trial and error though with multiple moves of light and train until you can see how far they have to go before them meet.)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 20:08:09

(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)


Before I answer your left out results, can you please explain where the hell you are getting 1.5c from?

Not once in the entire scenario does anything travel at 1.5c. Why are you adding the speeds together?  maybe its just me and I need to think about that one.

The light travels cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif, b contracts the distance while c also contracts the distance.

The light hits b after 2/3rds of second because there is less distance travelled by c.

The light then returns e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif while (a) is moving forward at 0.5c expanding the distance.

C then takes more time to catch up. I do not even ''see'' a contraction.   Where is your contraction?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 20:20:19
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light for a clock. Let's make the mirrors in the clock both perpendicular to and with the direction of motion. Obviously the same distance apart. The clock going 0.866025 we use the Gods eye again to start the photons from each mirror. We can divide 1 by 0.133 to get 7.5 of your centimeters for the light to reach the front mirror.

I assume you're still using 10cm as the clock length, so if light moves 10 cm from the rear, the front will move 8.67cm in the same length of time, meaning that it is still 8.67cm ahead of the light. That will happen in an amount of time that we can call "t" (and be aware that this t is not the same size as the t used in my discussions with TheBox - with him the t is a second, but here the t is a third of a nanosecond). Anyway, you will have to repeat this step quite a few times before the light can actually catch up with the front mirror. The closing speed of the light and mirror is 10cm/t minus 8.67cm/t, so that's 1.33cm/t. The gap to be closed is 10cm, so we divide that 10 by the 1.33 and get the time it takes for light to catch the mirror, and that will be 7.4641t. You have mistaken this time as the distance light has to go to get from the back of the carriage to the front, and you should have realised that it can't possibly cross the gap in such a short distance when that distance isn't even as big as the carriage length. To get the actual distance the light has to go before it catches the mirror, you need to multiply the distance that light goes in t (i.e. 10cm) by 7.4641t, so that's going to be a whopping great 74.641cm.

Quote
We can also do the Pythagoras by squaring 0.866025 for the same distance of 7.5 as the ratio to 1 as the speed of light in the forward direction with vector velocity.

The same distance as what? The time that you mistook for distance (and whose value is not quite 7.5)? You've made a massive error which you're now trying to build upon.

Quote
The return light rounded off is about 0.57 relative to 1. 8.07 / 2 for the two way measurement of light. 4.035 cycle distance for the photon. Basically a 1/4 ratio 0.25 to 1. If we take the sq. rt. of 0.25 we get 0.5 vs. relative rest. This is what the Lorentz contraction represents.

For the return trip, the carriage moves 53.5898 and the light moves 4.641cm before they meet. I can't make sense of what you're trying to do there with any of what you've done there.

Quote
Now when the forward direction of light hits the forward mirror the perpendicular light has not reached its mirror yet.

Not possible - light takes 2t for the round trip on both clocks with the carriage at rest. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, it takes 4t on the perpendicular clock, and 2t for each half of that, so it reaches the far perpendicular mirror in 2t and reaches the front mirror of the other clock in 7.4641t.

Quote
The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

It reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.

Quote
Explain why we need to contract the object physically? The visual contraction of the hypotenuse angle fits the contracted view. If it were also physically contracted it would not fit what is observed.

It's not that I wasn't taught the same thing you were its just that subjective thinking of physical contraction seems contrived.

My interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html should already have shown you how the maths relates into reality, so why am I having to point you to them again? Do you not trust your own eyes? The MMX apparatus is like a pair of light clocks perpendicular to each other. The way I've arranged things in those diagrams sends the light from the front mirror to the rear one first, so it's the second part of the light's journey that takes a long time. Study it carefully. How fast is the apparatus moving across the screen and how fast are the red dots moving across the screen? Have I cheated in some way with the diagrams? No - you can see the speeds, lengths, distances and angles by eye and tell that they are correct. On the first interactive diagram you can see what happens without length-contraction. On the second interactive diagram you can see how length-correction produces the null result.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 20:25:18
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light for a clock. Let's make the mirrors in the clock both perpendicular to and with the direction of motion. Obviously the same distance apart. The clock going 0.866025 we use the Gods eye again to start the photons from each mirror. We can divide 1 by 0.133 to get 7.5 of your centimeters for the light to reach the front mirror.

I assume you're still using 10cm as the clock length, so if light moves 10 cm from the rear, the front will move 8.67cm in the same length of time, meaning that it is still 8.67cm ahead of the light. That will happen in an amount of time that we can call "t" (and be aware that this t is not the same size as the t used in my discussions with TheBox - with him the t is a second, but here the t is a third of a nanosecond). Anyway, you will have to repeat this step quite a few times before the light can actually catch up with the front mirror. The closing speed of the light and mirror is 10cm/t minus 8.67cm/t, so that's 1.33cm/t. The gap to be closed is 10cm, so we divide that 10 by the 1.33 and get the time it takes for light to catch the mirror, and that will be 7.4641t. You have mistaken this time as the distance light has to go to get from the back of the carriage to the front, and you should have realised that it can't possibly cross the gap in such a short distance when that distance isn't even as big as the carriage length. To get the actual distance the light has to go before it catches the mirror, you need to multiply the distance that light goes in t (i.e. 10cm) by 7.4641t, so that's going to be a whopping great 74.641cm.

Quote
We can also do the Pythagoras by squaring 0.866025 for the same distance of 7.5 as the ratio to 1 as the speed of light in the forward direction with vector velocity.

The same distance as what? The time that you mistook for distance (and whose value is not quite 7.5)? You've made a massive error which you're now trying to build upon.

Quote
The return light rounded off is about 0.57 relative to 1. 8.07 / 2 for the two way measurement of light. 4.035 cycle distance for the photon. Basically a 1/4 ratio 0.25 to 1. If we take the sq. rt. of 0.25 we get 0.5 vs. relative rest. This is what the Lorentz contraction represents.

For the return trip, the carriage moves 53.5898 and the light moves 4.641cm before they meet. I can't make sense of what you're trying to do there with any of what you've done there.

Quote
Now when the forward direction of light hits the forward mirror the perpendicular light has not reached its mirror yet.

Not possible - light takes 2t for the round trip on both clocks with the carriage at rest. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, it takes 4t on the perpendicular clock, and 2t for each half of that, so it reaches the far perpendicular mirror in 2t and reaches the front mirror of the other clock in 7.4641t.

Quote
The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

It reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.

Quote
Explain why we need to contract the object physically? The visual contraction of the hypotenuse angle fits the contracted view. If it were also physically contracted it would not fit what is observed.

It's not that I wasn't taught the same thing you were its just that subjective thinking of physical contraction seems contrived.

My interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html should already have shown you how the maths relates into reality, so why am I having to point you to them again? Do you not trust your own eyes? The MMX apparatus is like a pair of light clocks perpendicular to each other. The way I've arranged things in those diagrams sends the light from the front mirror to the rear one first, so it's the second part of the light's journey that takes a long time. Study it carefully. How fast is the apparatus moving across the screen and how fast are the red dots moving across the screen? Have I cheated in some way with the diagrams? No - you can see the speeds, lengths, distances and angles by eye and tell that they are correct. On the first interactive diagram you can see what happens without length-contraction. On the second interactive diagram you can see how length-correction produces the null result.

event 1:The first distance contracts(rear), relative to light at 449688702m/s?

0.5c+c


event 2: rear to front return, the distance contracts at 149896229m/s?

added : much easier using cars
* cars.jpg (55.67 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 2287 times)

P.s : All you have explained thus far just explains that light takes more time to travel a further distance which I think we all know. I still await where you observe this physical contraction?

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 20:51:32
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

Before I answer your left out results, can you please explain where the hell you are getting 1.5c from?

Not once in the entire scenario does anything travel at 1.5c. Why are you adding the speeds together?  maybe its just me and I need to think about that one.

It's a mathematical method which I explained that in the final paragraph, so I'll repeat it here:-

"If you have difficulty understanding step seven, we work out the closing speed by adding the speed of light to the speed of the train because that tells us how long either of them would take to hit the other if the other was stationary. This is a short cut which is useful because it avoids doing multiple additions as we move the light a bit towards the rear of the train and the back of the train half as far towards the train - if you try to work out the answer that way it becomes an ordeal of trial and error as you don't know how far to move either of them to get them to the point where they will collide. Feel free to use trial and error though with multiple moves of light and train until you can see how far they have to go before them meet."

I invited you to check the validity of the mathematical method if you wish to by using trial and error instead - that may involve doing the calculation through many steps with guessed distances until you happen upon the right numbers for the light to hit the rear of the train.

Quote
The light travels cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif, b contracts the distance while c also contracts the distance.

The light hits b after 2/3rds of second because there is less distance travelled by c.

What do you mean by "b contracts the distance" and "c contracts the distance"? When light is moving from a to b, b is moving away from it while the light chases it down. It takes 2 seconds for the light to catch b, as described in step (4). The separation distance is closed over time by the relative movement of the light and the front end of the train, but it's not a good idea to use the word "contracted" in this context.

Quote
The light then returns e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif while (a) is moving forward at 0.5c expanding the distance.

It's also not a good idea to use the word "expanding" there. This time we have a separation distance being closed over time by the relative movement of the light and rear of the train, and it takes 2/3 of a second for them to meet.

Quote
C then takes more time to catch up. I do not even ''see'' a contraction.   Where is your contraction?

There is no contraction involved yet. We only apply length-contraction later on when we try to make this light clock tick at the same rate as a perpendicular light clock which will tick faster than the uncontracted lengthways light clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 21:00:03
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

Before I answer your left out results, can you please explain where the hell you are getting 1.5c from?

Not once in the entire scenario does anything travel at 1.5c. Why are you adding the speeds together?  maybe its just me and I need to think about that one.

It's a mathematical method which I explained that in the final paragraph, so I'll repeat it here:-

"If you have difficulty understanding step seven, we work out the closing speed by adding the speed of light to the speed of the train because that tells us how long either of them would take to hit the other if the other was stationary. This is a short cut which is useful because it avoids doing multiple additions as we move the light a bit towards the rear of the train and the back of the train half as far towards the train - if you try to work out the answer that way it becomes an ordeal of trial and error as you don't know how far to move either of them to get them to the point where they will collide. Feel free to use trial and error though with multiple moves of light and train until you can see how far they have to go before them meet."

I invited you to check the validity of the mathematical method if you wish to by using trial and error instead - that may involve doing the calculation through many steps with guessed distances until you happen upon the right numbers for the light to hit the rear of the train.

Quote
The light travels cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif, b contracts the distance while c also contracts the distance.

The light hits b after 2/3rds of second because there is less distance travelled by c.

What do you mean by "b contracts the distance" and "c contracts the distance"? When light is moving from a to b, b is moving away from it while the light chases it down. It takes 2 seconds for the light to catch b, as described in step (4). The separation distance is closed over time by the relative movement of the light and the front end of the train, but it's not a good idea to use the word "contracted" in this context.

Quote
The light then returns e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif while (a) is moving forward at 0.5c expanding the distance.

It's also not a good idea to use the word "expanding" there. This time we have a separation distance being closed over time by the relative movement of the light and rear of the train, and it takes 2/3 of a second for them to meet.

Quote
C then takes more time to catch up. I do not even ''see'' a contraction.   Where is your contraction?

There is no contraction involved yet. We only apply length-contraction later on when we try to make this light clock tick at the same rate as a perpendicular light clock which will tick faster than the uncontracted lengthways light clock.

Ok I do 'see'' your contraction now you mention the light clock, however you are ''playing'' with a ''parlour trick illusion'', twice the distance is twice the time, the clock is not broken in your scenario.
If you were to define geometrical points of position and took your measure from that, it removes all your error in the scenario. Changing origin points will change the length of the light second obviously because you are increasing or decreasing the distance the light has to travel. You are removing the constant time length by variance in the origin points creating this ''parlour trick''.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 21:03:20

event 1:The first distance contracts(rear), relative to light at 449688702m/s?

0.5c+c


event 2: rear to front return, the distance contracts at 149896229m/s?

added : much easier using cars
* cars.jpg (55.67 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 2287 times)

I have no idea what your diagram's meant to be showing or how it is relevant to anything here. It appears to display contractions perpendicular to the direction of travel and has more to do with perspective and art.

Quote
P.s : All you have explained thus far just explains that light takes more time to travel a further distance which I think we all know. I still await where you observe this physical contraction?

You didn't appear to understand before that a light clock ticks slower if it's moving along because of the extra distance light has to travel through space for each tick. If you have now got your head around that, you should be able to produce numbers for this that fit with mine, and then we can move on to looking at the perpendicular light clock to see how much its ticking rate is slowed. After that, we can compare the two clocks to see whether they tick at the same rate as each other, and we'll find that they don't - the perpendicular light clock ticks more often than the light clock aligned lengthways along the train. The MMX shows us though that in the real universe the two clocks do tick at the same rate as each other, and that's why we conclude that there must be length-contraction in the real universe. At the moment though, you're a long way from being able to understand that, and it's not certain that your mind is capable of getting on top of it, even if it is the best mind on the planet.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 21:06:18

event 1:The first distance contracts(rear), relative to light at 449688702m/s?

0.5c+c


event 2: rear to front return, the distance contracts at 149896229m/s?

added : much easier using cars
* cars.jpg (55.67 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 2287 times)

I have no idea what your diagram's meant to be showing or how it is relevant to anything here. It appears to display contractions perpendicular to the direction of travel and has more to do with perspective and art.

Quote
P.s : All you have explained thus far just explains that light takes more time to travel a further distance which I think we all know. I still await where you observe this physical contraction?

You didn't appear to understand before that a light clock ticks slower if it's moving along because of the extra distance light has to travel through space for each tick. If you have now got your head around that, you should be able to produce numbers for this that fit with mine, and then we can move on to looking at the perpendicular light clock to see how much its ticking rate is slowed. After that, we can compare the two clocks to see whether they tick at the same rate as each other, and we'll find that they don't - the perpendicular light clock ticks more often than the light clock aligned lengthways along the train. The MMX shows us though that in the real universe the two clocks do tick at the same rate as each other, and that's why we conclude that there must be length-contraction in the real universe. At the moment though, you're a long way from being able to understand that, and it's not certain that your mind is capable of getting on top of it, even if it is the best mind on the planet.

If the diagram is easier to understand for you this way, consider the 0.5c ''block'' is the front of the train and the c ''block'' is the chasing light.

The lines are the road lol.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 21:27:45
Ok I do 'see'' your contraction now you mention the light clock, however you are ''playing'' with a ''parlour trick illusion'', twice the distance is twice the time, the clock is not broken in your scenario.

There's no issue of a clock being broken. The longer the light takes to complete the round trip, the slower that clock will tick. A moving clock will tick less frequently than a stationary clock. A moving clock that's aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel will tick more frequently though than an uncontracted clock that's aligned lengthways with its direction of travel, and again there's no parlour trick involved in that - the light has further to go on the latter clock to complete a round trip. The parlour trick is performed by the universe by contracting things in their direction of travel and thereby producing a null result with the MMX.

Quote
If you were to define geometrical points of position and took your measure from that, it removes all your error in the scenario. Changing origin points will change the length of the light second obviously because you are increasing or decreasing the distance the light has to travel. You are removing the constant time length by variance in the origin points creating this ''parlour trick''.

Look at my interactive MMX diagrams. The screen is the fabric of space and the geometrical points of position don't change at all. The apparatus and light move across the screen, and it's where the mirrors are when the light hits them that determines how far the light has to travel to complete a round trip. I do not vary the origin position at any time.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/05/2017 21:46:09
If the diagram is easier to understand for you this way, consider the 0.5c ''block'' is the front of the train and the c ''block'' is the chasing light.

The wording was odd and the diagram unnecessary. What you appear to be saying is that the closing speed for the front-to-rear part of the light's trip is 449688702m/s (which is the second part of the trip) and that the closing speed for the rear-to-front part of the light's trip is c minus the speed of the train, so that's 149896229, and both those numbers are correct. They equate to 1.5c and 0.5c. We use the 0.5c to work out that light takes 2 seconds for the first part of its trip, and the 1.5c to work out that it takes 2/3 seconds for the second part of its trip. If you agree with that, then you should be happy with the value I've put in square brackets in paragraph (7) below.

So, we now have this:-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


If you agree with the values in square brackets so far, we can continue filling the rest in from paragraph (8 ) onwards.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 23:45:34
There's no issue of a clock being broken. The longer the light takes to complete the round trip, the slower that clock will tick.

Which I have been trying to tell you , means absolutely nothing.  The clock is not ticking slower at all, the distance is being increased the light has to travel, you interpreting this as being a tick of a clock is totally unnecessarily.  The subjective interpretation you are using is the parlour trick and you do not even realise why.  It means nothing, it is babble that shows nothing except light has to travel less or more distance relative to the motion of the carriage.
So why are you  making it to be more than it actually is?  I don't understand because it is simple laws of physics that needs no more interpretation than what I mentioned.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 22/05/2017 23:56:21

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)


Is your starting point from the rear travelling to the front e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif  or from the front travelling to the rear cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif?

I am starting from the front of the train, as the train moves the light is released in the rear direction. I have the shortest time firstly then the longer time secondly. 

From the front to the rear whilst the rear is moving towards the light and vice versus, I  have t=0.72s approx.

Then from the rear to the front t=1.5s approx



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 00:29:47
There's no issue of a clock being broken. The longer the light takes to complete the round trip, the slower that clock will tick.

Which I have been trying to tell you , means absolutely nothing.  The clock is not ticking slower at all, the distance is being increased the light has to travel, you interpreting this as being a tick of a clock is totally unnecessarily.  The subjective interpretation you are using is the parlour trick and you do not even realise why.  It means nothing, it is babble that shows nothing except light has to travel less or more distance relative to the motion of the carriage.
So why are you  making it to be more than it actually is?  I don't understand because it is simple laws of physics that needs no more interpretation than what I mentioned.

If this is all a wind up, it's an extraordinary performance and you are indeed a comedy genius. However, I have to consider the possibility that you aren't that brilliant, in which case you really do think what you just said.

A light clock (as used in thought experiments rather than the real world) works by sending out a pulse of light which travels along to a mirror and bounces back to a detector where the light was originally sent out from, at which point another pulse of light is sent out. A tick of this kind of clock is completed when the light pulse returns and a new one is sent out. If the light has to travel further through space due to the movement of the light clock, the light clock ticks less often. The light is a key part of the clock's mechanism and the time it takes to complete the round trip dictates the tick rate. [I don't know how else you imagine a light clock could be made to tick though - there's no possible way for it to measure how far the light's actually travelled and to tick once it's gone a set distance.]

The whole point of using light clocks in thought experiments is that their mechanism is out in the open and we can see how the clock is slowed by its movement, but all clocks are slowed in the same way by their movement through space no matter how they're designed - they all have components which move in some way or other with delays introduced by increases in force communication distances caused by movement of the clock, and length-contraction also has a role in affecting their tick rate.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 00:33:05

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)


Is your starting point from the rear travelling to the front e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif  or from the front travelling to the rear cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif?

I am starting from the front of the train, as the train moves the light is released in the rear direction. I have the shortest time firstly then the longer time secondly.

Throughout this thread I've worked with the rear-to-front direction first, so if you've switched it round to do the other direction first, it's a simple matter of swapping the numbers over.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 00:57:54
There's no issue of a clock being broken. The longer the light takes to complete the round trip, the slower that clock will tick.

Which I have been trying to tell you , means absolutely nothing.  The clock is not ticking slower at all, the distance is being increased the light has to travel, you interpreting this as being a tick of a clock is totally unnecessarily.  The subjective interpretation you are using is the parlour trick and you do not even realise why.  It means nothing, it is babble that shows nothing except light has to travel less or more distance relative to the motion of the carriage.
So why are you  making it to be more than it actually is?  I don't understand because it is simple laws of physics that needs no more interpretation than what I mentioned.

If this is all a wind up, it's an extraordinary performance and you are indeed a comedy genius. However, I have to consider the possibility that you aren't that brilliant, in which case you really do think what you just said.

A light clock (as used in thought experiments rather than the real world) works by sending out a pulse of light which travels along to a mirror and bounces back to a detector where the light was originally sent out from, at which point another pulse of light is sent out. A tick of this kind of clock is completed when the light pulse returns and a new one is sent out. If the light has to travel further through space due to the movement of the light clock, the light clock ticks less often. The light is a key part of the clock's mechanism and the time it takes to complete the round trip dictates the tick rate. [I don't know how else you imagine a light clock could be made to tick though - there's no possible way for it to measure how far the light's actually travelled and to tick once it's gone a set distance.]

The whole point of using light clocks in thought experiments is that their mechanism is out in the open and we can see how the clock is slowed by its movement, but all clocks are slowed in the same way by their movement through space no matter how they're designed - they all have components which move in some way or other with delays introduced by increases in force communication distances caused by movement of the clock, and length-contraction also has a role in affecting their tick rate.

Quite clearly you think a clock is more than it is.   I know what a light clock is but quite clearly you ignore the observer affect by adding mirrors and such, setting the parameters to fit the ''story'' without considering the what at best you have in terms of objective reality.  The clock does not tick slower to begin with, we can work out the extra distance the light needs to travel and adjust accordingly to maintain the same rate of tick. i.e 1 second would not be equal to 1 second unless we calculated the difference to synchronise the difference.
I.e one clock would be measuring 1 second while 1 clock was measuring 1.2 seconds. The duration and length of a second then remaining the same with no contraction needed .
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 01:00:06

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)


Is your starting point from the rear travelling to the front e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif  or from the front travelling to the rear cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif?

I am starting from the front of the train, as the train moves the light is released in the rear direction. I have the shortest time firstly then the longer time secondly.

Throughout this thread I've worked with the rear-to-front direction first, so if you've switched it round to do the other direction first, it's a simple matter of swapping the numbers over.
Ok, well i get about 1.5s and about 0.72s  approx

p.s i did it this way but could be more precise if needed.

* newc.jpg (31.52 kB . 801x476 - viewed 2156 times)




Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 23/05/2017 02:46:20
I assume you're still using 10cm as the clock length, so if light moves 10 cm from the rear, the front will move 8.67cm in the same length of time, meaning that it is still 8.67cm ahead of the light. That will happen in an amount of time that we can call "t" (and be aware that this t is not the same size as the t used in my discussions with TheBox - with him the t is a second, but here the t is a third of a nanosecond). Anyway, you will have to repeat this step quite a few times before the light can actually catch up with the front mirror. The closing speed of the light and mirror is 10cm/t minus 8.67cm/t, so that's 1.33cm/t. The gap to be closed is 10cm, so we divide that 10 by the 1.33 and get the time it takes for light to catch the mirror, and that will be 7.4641t. You have mistaken this time as the distance light has to go to get from the back of the carriage to the front, and you should have realised that it can't possibly cross the gap in such a short distance when that distance isn't even as big as the carriage length. To get the actual distance the light has to go before it catches the mirror, you need to multiply the distance that light goes in t (i.e. 10cm) by 7.4641t, so that's going to be a whopping great 74.641cm.

You tell me 0.867 rounded off 0.866025. So rather than 1.33 that you gave me you used the correct 1.33975 for 7.461. We are just using ratio's for distance light travels. How we measure time will fall out of our measurements as ratios. The end result at this speed will be half the tick rate. You are not following the postulates of relativity in your understanding for distance. Your using a fudge factor and confusing yourself with your current understanding of time.

Quote
The same distance as what? The time that you mistook for distance (and whose value is not quite 7.5)? You've made a massive error which you're now trying to build upon.
Rounding off is a massive error? I see you rounded up to 0.867 when .866 was more accurate

Quote
For the return trip, the carriage moves 53.5898 and the light moves 4.641cm before they meet. I can't make sense of what you're trying to do there with any of what you've done there.


Of course you cannot make sense of what I am saying. You do not understand the ratio for closing distances. You are probably subtracting your physical contraction but here is the real closing distances. Follow my logic: if one side is light speed and the other side is light speed they would meet in the middle 50% or .50 / .50 for distance covered. Now if the mirror on the physical object is moving at 0.866025c and closing on c, c wins. The physical object moves 0.866025 for every 1.0 for light. So the closing speed of light has to be over 50% of the closing distance. I just estimated 57% which was 0.57 of one length as a ratio. Light always wins in closing ratios. Now light goes forward 7.46 and returns 1 for light and 0.866 for the object (clock) we have 0.133 difference divide that by 2 for a quick estimate gives about 0.066 which I rounded up to 0.57 and added it to my rounded off 7.5 cars for light to catch the front mirror for light to travel 7.46 + 0.57 = 8.03 for its length. Now we divide it by 2 for 4.015 cars divide into one car and we get 0.25 the ratio. The square rt. of 0.25 is 0.5 tick rate. If you are unhappy with Lorentz I am unhappy with physical contraction. You do not fudge objects to fit math when you do not understand what time represents

Quote
Not possible - light takes 2t for the round trip on both clocks with the carriage at rest. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, it takes 4t on the perpendicular clock, and 2t for each half of that, so it reaches the far perpendicular mirror in 2t and reaches the front mirror of the other clock in 7.4641t.
Just like you missed the closing speeds your missing the position of the perpendicular mirror in the clock at 0.866025c when the light reaches the mirror. The perpendicular mirror reaches the position of 7.46 cars the light still has not reached the perpendicular mirror. The perpendicular light only found space and not the mirror when light reached the mirrors position from the past. The angle of light is still traveling to hit the angled closing position in space.
The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

[/quote]
It reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.[/quote]
Your logic is missing the mark.

My interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html should already have shown you how the maths relates into reality, so why am I having to point you to them again? Do you not trust your own eyes? The MMX apparatus is like a pair of light clocks perpendicular to each other. The way I've arranged things in those diagrams sends the light from the front mirror to the rear one first, so it's the second part of the light's journey that takes a long time. Study it carefully. How fast is the apparatus moving across the screen and how fast are the red dots moving across the screen? Have I cheated in some way with the diagrams? No - you can see the speeds, lengths, distances and angles by eye and tell that they are correct. On the first interactive diagram you can see what happens without length-contraction. On the second interactive diagram you can see how length-correction produces the null result.
[/quote]
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 12:53:31
@David

Why do we need any maths when we can have a scale system?  2:1 ratio

* c-graph.jpg (78.8 kB . 1445x505 - viewed 2154 times)

Does your maths agree with my diagram? for the first part cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif which is front to rear.

Your first answer must be around the 1.7s mark. If not you got it wrong somewhere.

added- huh, somethings not right, how can they meet in 1.7s when the light has travelled for more than that , scratches head and rethinks diagram.

I might have to agree time slows down .

Correction , the first contact point should be on the 2 second mark.

p.s damn, i messed it up lol, i will do it again later,
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 23/05/2017 14:52:59
Hi guys, hi David, 

I'm Raymond, the guy on Facebook. :0) Your nice simulation on Magic Schoolbook shows very clearly how and why length contraction should occur, so I take it as a possibility, but you also agree with relativists that a light clock should slow down when it moves since light takes more time between the mirrors this way, and I can't see how it should since there would be no doppler effect to measure whatever the speed, thus no variation in the elapsed time between the light pulses. You say «The simplest kind of clock is the light clock: this is a device which sends a pulse of light out to a mirror which then reflects it straight back again to a sensor from where the light was originally emitted, and the round trip of the light pulse counts as a tick. ». But it seems to me that, without doppler effect, even if light would take more time between the mirrors, the distance between the tics would always be measured the same whatever the speed, which means that a clock that has traveled during a certain time would show exactly the same elapsed time than one at rest.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 15:58:20

* ruler.jpg (96.98 kB . 1765x505 - viewed 2106 times)

added- still not quite right.

tA=0.75s

tB=1.5s

thinks that's correct now?

Anyway David, what i have been trying to explain to you is that it means nothing.  There is no contraction of space or the carriage. There is only objectively  a variance in distance that gives you a variance in tick rate.






Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 17:46:22
Quite clearly you think a clock is more than it is.   I know what a light clock is but quite clearly you ignore the observer affect by adding mirrors and such, setting the parameters to fit the ''story'' without considering the what at best you have in terms of objective reality.  The clock does not tick slower to begin with, we can work out the extra distance the light needs to travel and adjust accordingly to maintain the same rate of tick. i.e 1 second would not be equal to 1 second unless we calculated the difference to synchronise the difference.
I.e one clock would be measuring 1 second while 1 clock was measuring 1.2 seconds. The duration and length of a second then remaining the same with no contraction needed .

Picture this. We have two light clocks sitting next to each other, and let's align them the same way as each other. We move one of the light clocks away from the other and it ticks less often than the stationary one because of the increased distance light has to travel in the moving clock to complete each tick. We stop moving that clock and see it return to ticking at the same rate as the clock that never moved. Next, we move it back again to reunite it with the stationary clock, and while it's moving back it ticks more slowly again. Once we have brought it to a halt next to the clock that never moved, the two clocks tick in sync with each other again. If each clock has a counter, as clocks usually do, they might both have been set to zero at the start of the experiment. Now one of the clocks has a higher reading on it than the other because it has recorded more ticks. The clock that did all the moving has registered fewer ticks. The light in both clocks travelled exactly the same distance through space during the experiment, but it had to go further in the moving clock for many of the ticks and therefore couldn't complete as many ticks for its clock as the light in the stationary clock.

To claim that the clock that moved didn't tick more slowly than the one that stayed still the whole time is a nonsense - the different counts that they've racked up prove it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 18:50:08
You tell me 0.867 rounded off 0.866025. So rather than 1.33 that you gave me you used the correct 1.33975 for 7.461. We are just using ratio's for distance light travels. How we measure time will fall out of our measurements as ratios. The end result at this speed will be half the tick rate. You are not following the postulates of relativity in your understanding for distance. Your using a fudge factor and confusing yourself with your current understanding of time.

Quote
The same distance as what? The time that you mistook for distance (and whose value is not quite 7.5)? You've made a massive error which you're now trying to build upon.
Rounding off is a massive error? I see you rounded up to 0.867 when .866 was more accurate

You're right about my 0.867 being wrong - I've accidentally got into the habit of using the 7 from the 0.87 version. Every time I use the number in a calculator though, I use sin(60) and never type in a rounded off version of it, and I'd expect you to do the same. The important point here though is that the 7.461 figure is not 7.5, but you appeared to be mistaking your rounded up 7.5 for sin(60)^2. I was drawing attention to the difference in order to help you see that it is not what you thought it was, the 7.461 actually being the time of the forward trip of the light. I have used no fudge factor in my calculations and am not confused in the least - you imagine that the massive error I referred to is the rounding error, but that was just a small detail. The massive error was you taking 7.5 (or the correct value of 7.461) as the distance the light has to travel from the rear mirror to the front one - the distance it actually has to travel is TEN TIMES as great: 74.61cm. Look at the first of my interactive diagrams and watch how long it takes for the red pulse of light to travel from the rear mirror to the front one and see how far across the screen it has to travel during that time.

Quote
For the return trip, the carriage moves 53.5898 and the light moves 4.641cm before they meet. I can't make sense of what you're trying to do there with any of what you've done there.

I don't know how, but I made two mistakes in that bit. If you knew the right numbers though, you should have been able to work that out yourself: the decimal point is in the wrong place for the first number, and the two numbers need to be switched over. The carriage moves 4.641cm and the light moves 5.35898. And before you try to capitalise on that and say it's as bad as your error, it isn't - I didn't build anything upon these errors and it's only the corrected versions that fit with what I've been saying, but you built a lot on top of yours and correcting them will force you to throw out your argument.

Quote
Of course you cannot make sense of what I am saying. You do not understand the ratio for closing distances. You are probably subtracting your physical contraction but here is the real closing distances.

There is no physical contraction involved in these calculations - we haven't got that far yet. These calculations are all about an uncontracted train.

Quote
Follow my logic: if one side is light speed and the other side is light speed they would meet in the middle 50% or .50 / .50 for distance covered.

You've got that bit right.

Quote
Now if the mirror on the physical object is moving at 0.866025c and closing on c, c wins. The physical object moves 0.866025 for every 1.0 for light. So the closing speed of light has to be over 50% of the closing distance. I just estimated 57% which was 0.57 of one length as a ratio. Light always wins in closing ratios.

I had assumed you had calculated your 57% figure rather than just guessing, and that's why I thought you had applied an incorrect method. I gave you my numbers (one incorrect, and both incorrectly labelled) in order to give you something to aim for in your calculations, and if you'd done the maths properly you would have understood where my numbers come from despite the errors, and you would have known that we had both applied a valid method.

Quote
Now light goes forward 7.46 and returns 1 for light and 0.866 for the object (clock) we have 0.133 difference divide that by 2 for a quick estimate gives about 0.066 which I rounded up to 0.57 and added it to my rounded off 7.5 cars for light to catch the front mirror for light to travel 7.46 + 0.57 = 8.03 for its length. Now we divide it by 2 for 4.015 cars divide into one car and we get 0.25 the ratio. The square rt. of 0.25 is 0.5 tick rate.

That is a hopeless mess of misapplied maths! The correct method is to add the speeds of the train and the light [or subtract one from the other if you're taking one of them to be negative] which gives you a closing speed of 1.866c. You then divide the separation distance (10cm) by that speed to get the time taken for the rear of the carriage and the light to meet up. You then take that result and multiply it by c (=1) to get the distance travelled by the light in that time. To get the distance travelled by the carriage in that time, you can either multiply the same result by 0.866 or you can take away the distance travelled by the light in that time from the 10cm initial separation figure - both methods produce the same value.

Quote
If you are unhappy with Lorentz I am unhappy with physical contraction. You do not fudge objects to fit math when you do not understand what time represents

I am very happy with Lorentz, and we haven't done any physical contraction here yet. You are the one doing the fudging with your crazy misapplication of maths where you've defecated a whole lot of numbers into a pot and stirred them together with a determination to make them conform to the right amount of time dilation for a perpendicular clock which is the wrong answer for this uncontracted clock aligned lengthways with the train's direction of travel. I've rarely seen maths being so misused outside of politics. It's shocking, and it will do your reputation here no good at all if you fail to correct it in a hurry. Do the job properly!

Quote
Quote
Not possible - light takes 2t for the round trip on both clocks with the carriage at rest. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, it takes 4t on the perpendicular clock, and 2t for each half of that, so it reaches the far perpendicular mirror in 2t and reaches the front mirror of the other clock in 7.4641t.
Just like you missed the closing speeds your missing the position of the perpendicular mirror in the clock at 0.866025c when the light reaches the mirror. The perpendicular mirror reaches the position of 7.46 cars the light still has not reached the perpendicular mirror. The perpendicular light only found space and not the mirror when light reached the mirrors position from the past. The angle of light is still traveling to hit the angled closing position in space.
The photon has to follow the hypotenuse and has not reached the opposing mirror by the 7.5 forward ratio.

You still haven't taken in the scale of your monumental error! The 7.4641t is a time and not a distance. The distance is that time multiplied by 10 (which comes from the 10cm distance). The train moves over seventy four cm before the light reaches the front mirror.

Quote
Quote
It reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.
Your logic is missing the mark.

Your maths is woeful, and your eyesight may be just as bad. Look at my interactive diagrams properly and measure the distance the red dot moves across the screen from the point where it leaves the rear mirror to the point where it catches the front mirror. Then compare that with the distance the apparatus moves between the other red dot leaving the bottom mirror and arriving at the top one. Maybe your screen isn't wide enough to do the first measurement? It that's the problem, just use the lower interactive diagram that shows the length contraction applied to the MMX, then double the distance that you measure there (but don't double the other distance).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 19:16:22
Hi Raymond,

...but you also agree with relativists that a light clock should slow down when it moves since light takes more time between the mirrors this way, and I can't see how it should since there would be no doppler effect to measure whatever the speed, thus no variation in the elapsed time between the light pulses.

I've answered part of that in post #123 (a short time ago today). On the issue of the Doppler effect, there would be no change at all in frequency of the light for anyone co-moving with the clock, so it's only a stationary observer that would see the colour of the light change. The light in the moving clock would be produced at a lower frequency as the mechanism producing it would be slowed by movement through space, but it would also vary, becoming more blue when the light pulse is on the longer forward paths through its clock and more red when moving rearward on the short paths. The speed of the light through space would always be c though - the frequency changes cannot affect that.

Quote
...But it seems to me that, without doppler effect, even if light would take more time between the mirrors, the distance between the tics would always be measured the same whatever the speed, which means that a clock that has traveled during a certain time would show exactly the same elapsed time than one at rest.

If you look at my interactive MMX diagrams, you can see the stationary apparatus on the left with red dots representing light pulses moving through it, and you can see that the ticks are faster on it that they are on the moving version of the apparatus shown to the right of it. The MMX is directly equivalent to a pair of light clocks set perpendicular to each other, so the time taken for the light to leave the semi-silvered mirror and to return to it from one of the mirrors at the ends of the arms can be taken as a clock tick. The same slowing of ticks would occur for moving the apparatus in the opposite direction, so if you were to imagine it stationary next to the one on the left that's already shown as being stationary, and then move it to the right for a while, then stop it, then move it back to where it started, and then stop it there, you would be able to count the ticks for the stationary one and for the one that moves, and you'd then see that the one that moves counts up fewer ticks than the stationary one as a result of its movement. You should also be able to see that the light never runs slow in either clock, so there is no slowing of any real time - there is only a slowing of clocks due to the greater distances that light has to travel on a moving clock per tick. All functionality of moving things is slowed for the same reason.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 19:26:18
tA=0.75s

tB=1.5s

thinks that's correct now?

What are those numbers supposed to represent?

Quote
Anyway David, what i have been trying to explain to you is that it means nothing.  There is no contraction of space or the carriage. There is only objectively  a variance in distance that gives you a variance in tick rate.

There is a reduction of ticks for moving clocks compared to stationary clocks, and the slowing of clocks in the real universe matches up with the increased distances that light travels on light clocks set perpendicular to their direction of travel and with length-contracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel, but until you can produce the right numbers or read what's happening on interactive diagrams correctly, you'll continue to misunderstand all of this and I don't have the time to drag you kicking and screaming through the rest of it if your learning speed is going to stay so low. You need help from AGI and I'd rather put the time into building that AGI.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 19:29:01
Quite clearly you think a clock is more than it is.   I know what a light clock is but quite clearly you ignore the observer affect by adding mirrors and such, setting the parameters to fit the ''story'' without considering the what at best you have in terms of objective reality.  The clock does not tick slower to begin with, we can work out the extra distance the light needs to travel and adjust accordingly to maintain the same rate of tick. i.e 1 second would not be equal to 1 second unless we calculated the difference to synchronise the difference.
I.e one clock would be measuring 1 second while 1 clock was measuring 1.2 seconds. The duration and length of a second then remaining the same with no contraction needed .

Picture this. We have two light clocks sitting next to each other, and let's align them the same way as each other. We move one of the light clocks away from the other and it ticks less often than the stationary one because of the increased distance light has to travel in the moving clock to complete each tick. We stop moving that clock and see it return to ticking at the same rate as the clock that never moved. Next, we move it back again to reunite it with the stationary clock, and while it's moving back it ticks more slowly again. Once we have brought it to a halt next to the clock that never moved, the two clocks tick in sync with each other again. If each clock has a counter, as clocks usually do, they might both have been set to zero at the start of the experiment. Now one of the clocks has a higher reading on it than the other because it has recorded more ticks. The clock that did all the moving has registered fewer ticks. The light in both clocks travelled exactly the same distance through space during the experiment, but it had to go further in the moving clock for many of the ticks and therefore couldn't complete as many ticks for its clock as the light in the stationary clock.

To claim that the clock that moved didn't tick more slowly than the one that stayed still the whole time is a nonsense - the different counts that they've racked up prove it.

The clocks do measure a different amount of ticks for the obviousness that you are changing  the distance.  You are doing two different distances so of course it measured different ticks, however it still means nothing, there is still no contraction and all you have shown is light takes more time to travel a further a distance which is quite obvious.   So what is your big reveal that is going to wow me? 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 19:33:30
tA=0.75s

tB=1.5s

thinks that's correct now?

Quote
What are those numbers supposed to represent?

They represent the time it takes light to travel ebb and flow in a moving carriage.

Quote
Anyway David, what i have been trying to explain to you is that it means nothing.  There is no contraction of space or the carriage. There is only objectively  a variance in distance that gives you a variance in tick rate.

Quote
There is a reduction of ticks for moving clocks compared to stationary clocks, and the slowing of clocks in the real universe matches up with the increased distances that light travels on light clocks set perpendicular to their direction of travel and with length-contracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel, but until you can produce the right numbers or read what's happening on interactive diagrams correctly, you'll continue to misunderstand all of this and I don't have the time to drag you kicking and screaming through the rest of it if your learning speed is going to stay so low. You need help from AGI and I'd rather put the time into building that AGI.
 

Slowing clocks?  what on earth are you talking about?  the only slowing down is the subjective parlour trick you are trying to introduce which means nothing and shows nothing.

p.s think my numbers should be 0.67s and 2.01s  sorry keep changing my mind
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 19:52:04

* lefty.jpg (121.96 kB . 1920x1080 - viewed 2082 times)

Yes I made this way up.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 19:59:22

* lefty1.jpg (292.33 kB . 1920x1080 - viewed 2073 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 23/05/2017 20:11:30
Quote from: David
The light in the moving clock would be produced at a lower frequency as the mechanism producing it would be slowed by movement through space, but it would also vary, becoming more blue when the light pulse is on the longer forward paths through its clock and more red when moving rearward on the short paths.
Could you add the doppler effect to your simulation with the contracted distance? Then we could see with our own eyes if the system tics more slowly than the source or not. Your source could emit a dot each second for instance.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2017 22:44:12
Could you add the doppler effect to your simulation with the contracted distance? Then we could see with our own eyes if the system tics more slowly than the source or not. Your source could emit a dot each second for instance.

It would be better to make a new diagram for that rather than messing up the existing one, but it would also take a lot of time and effort to create it, and I'd rather leave that work to someone else. JavaScript is not good at doing graphics and it takes a lot of trial and error to build things and line everything up properly, with each browser needing a different alignment set up for it and with browser updates sometimes messing the alignment up so that the dots are no longer where they're supposed to be. The light pulses are done using a full stop ("."  - yes, it's a piece of punctuation) and the MMX apparatus is an image file because the only other way of drawing lines is to use lots of "_" and "|" characters and then write code to move each one around if the object has to move. There was an old system for doing graphics along with JavaScript, but it was discontinued and the older versions of my programs became obsolete overnight. The replacement system was SVG which is a horrific bloated mess that I decided not to learn, not least because it too could have been discontinued at the drop of a hat too, but also because when I tried out the example code on the site behind SVG it didn't work on my machine at all, so I came up with ways of using JavaScript itself to do graphics in combination with HTML and then rewrote my programs to work that way. Even so, it's so much effort that I really don't want to have to write another graphics program in JavaScript ever again (or indeed any program in JavaScript as the language does not agree with the way I'm comfortable writing code - it too is a nightmarish mess).

But is it really necessary? You can already see ticks in the existing interactive diagrams - a tick occurs when the light diverges from the semi-silvered mirror and another occurs when the light gets back to the semi-silvered mirror. If the diagram illustrated a pair of light clocks, the emitter and receiver would both be located at the semi-silvered mirror and a new pair of light pulses would be sent out along the arms as soon as the first one returned. You should be able to imagine that happening without having to see it. You can already see how long the delay is between ticks and compare it against the action on the stationary MMX apparatus on the left of the screen.

I can see though that it would be nice to have a program that puts out lots of light pulses per cycle rather than just one because you'd be able to get a feel for how often they pass a stationary point (or a point on a moving object), but I can already imagine that such a program would immediately lead to certain people complaining about the rate at which the light pulses are generated because they'll insist that they should be sent out one for every second of absolute time instead of the slowed time of the moving device, so then another, smaller co-moving light clock would have to be programmed in to trigger the release of each light pulse on the larger clock, and then a string of other misplaced objections would follow while I spend weeks or months modifying the program to try to illustrate more and more things that they will simply continue to misunderstand or fail to see regardless. I'm not prepared to do that - it's a job for AGI to do and not one for me.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 23/05/2017 23:33:29
Is this correct now? my final answer

* ruler1.jpg (110.31 kB . 1765x505 - viewed 2040 times)

All the even numbers would be equal in length, and all the odd numbers would be equal in length.


2  0.66666666666
3  1.33333333333
4  0.66666666666
5  1.33333333333
6  0.66666666666
7  1.33333333333
8  0.66666666666

2+3=2.s

20cm + 40 cm = 60cm

At rest it takes 2 seconds for a round trip of 60cm.

In motion it takes 2 seconds for a round trip of 60cm.

Wheres your problem?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 00:04:41
The clocks do measure a different amount of ticks for the obviousness that you are changing  the distance.  You are doing two different distances so of course it measured different ticks, however it still means nothing, there is still no contraction and all you have shown is light takes more time to travel a further a distance which is quite obvious.   So what is your big reveal that is going to wow me?

Five points:-

(A) A moving clock records fewer ticks than a stationary one in a given length of time, so it is not recording time, but is merely counting cycles. That is what all clocks do.

(B) A light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of movement therefore records fewer ticks than a stationary clock.

(C) An uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel (rather than perpendicular to it) will record fewer ticks than a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel, but you can't see that yet because you've only attempted the maths for one of the two cases, and you haven't even got that right.

(D) A correctly length-contracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel will record the same number of ticks as a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(E) The null result of the MMX shows that the real universe length-contracts things in their direction of travel.

However, you won't agree with half of that because you still can't apply valid methods with the maths, even though I've shown you how to do it all for the part you keep tripping up on. I've tried to get you to the point where you can fit correct numbers to the non-perpendicular case, but you still aren't there and I think you're doing everything you can to avoid getting there. We haven't even started on the perpendicular case, so you still a long way from the point where you can compare the results and see that they don't tick at the same rate as each other. It doesn't look as if you're capable of completing the journey through this stuff, and the reason is most likely down to you not wanting to know that your position on it has been wrong all this time, based on a long string of errors in your thinking. I don't have time to fix it all for you - it's like pushing a car while the person sitting in it is applying the brakes as hard as they can.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 24/05/2017 00:08:32
The clocks do measure a different amount of ticks for the obviousness that you are changing  the distance.  You are doing two different distances so of course it measured different ticks, however it still means nothing, there is still no contraction and all you have shown is light takes more time to travel a further a distance which is quite obvious.   So what is your big reveal that is going to wow me?

Five points:-

(A) A moving clock records fewer ticks than a stationary one in a given length of time, so it is not recording time, but is merely counting cycles. That is what all clocks do.

(B) A light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of movement therefore records fewer ticks than a stationary clock.

(C) An uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel (rather than perpendicular to it) will record fewer ticks than a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel, but you can't see that yet because you've only attempted the maths for one of the two cases, and you haven't even got that right.

(D) A correctly length-contracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel will record the same number of ticks as a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(E) The null result of the MMX shows that the real universe length-contracts things in their direction of travel.

However, you won't agree with half of that because you still can't apply valid methods with the maths, even though I've shown you how to do it all for the part you keep tripping up on. I've tried to get you to the point where you can fit correct numbers to the non-perpendicular case, but you still aren't there and I think you're doing everything you can to avoid getting there. We haven't even started on the perpendicular case, so you still a long way from the point where you can compare the results and see that they don't tick at the same rate as each other. It doesn't look as if you're capable of completing the journey through this stuff, and the reason is most likely down to you not wanting to know that your position on it has been wrong all this time, based on a long string of errors in your thinking. I don't have time to fix it all for you - it's like pushing a car while the person sitting in it is applying the brakes as hard as they can.
I do not think you viewed my latest last post.  My numbers are correct.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 24/05/2017 00:14:13
FIFY :  Only measure the time using the front detector and count in 2's.

P.s I did warn David to be armed with more than subjective ''parlour tricks''.   I objectively ''see'' no problems in my results conclusion.

added ; my scale I am using is

30cm:299 792 458 m

speed ratio 2:1
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 24/05/2017 15:15:45

You still haven't taken in the scale of your monumental error! The 7.4641t is a time and not a distance. The distance is that time multiplied by 10 (which comes from the 10cm distance). The train moves over seventy four cm before the light reaches the front mirror.



There is no such thing as time. There is only one distance measured by another distance that cycles. Light will hit the front mirror in 7.461 cm in 10 cm length. It will hit the front mirror in 0.74671 n a 1 cm length. It is a ratio. A 100 cm cell length will be 74.61 ratio. There is no fixed time only a fixed ratio to c for energy of motion. In a frame time measurement is the same ratio for a cm as a km.

I am confused to my monumental error?

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/05/2017 16:52:04
Quote from: David
You can already see how long the delay is between ticks and compare it against the action on the stationary MMX apparatus on the left of the screen.
Of course, if we wait till the dots hit the detector to send a new one, then there will be more time between the dots on the right diagram, but if we send them at one second interval on both diagrams, it seems to me that they will be detected at the same frequency on both detectors, because there will be no doppler effect to alter the frequency. Time depends on the frequencies of vibrating or rotating bodies, not on the distance they travel through the fabric of space during their rotation or vibration, so why would it depend on the distance light travels instead of depending on its frequency? It is not the distance the earth's surface travels in space that determines the sidereal day length, it's when the same star passes at the zenith. It is not the distance traveled by a pendulum that determines the tics of a clock either, it's when it passes in the middle of its course.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 17:11:21
I do not think you viewed my latest last post.  My numbers are correct.

If they're correct, you should be able to insert them into the right places [between square brackets] in the following list:-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


You say that your latest numbers are correct, but I haven't seen you produce the right answers yet to put into (8 ) and (9), and those are the numbers you should be calculating. Also, you still haven't told me whether you agree with the number in square brackets for (7). Until these [= ...] parts remain unfilled with your numbers, you have not completed your assignment.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 17:22:31
There is no such thing as time. There is only one distance measured by another distance that cycles.

What is a distance that cycles? Without time, how can it cycle?

Quote
Light will hit the front mirror in 7.461 cm in 10 cm length.

If you think light can go from the rear of a 10cm to the front while the front is racing away from it and can catch up with it while only covering 7.461cm, you must be out of your tree.

Quote
It will hit the front mirror in 0.74671 n a 1 cm length. It is a ratio. A 100 cm cell length will be 74.61 ratio. There is no fixed time only a fixed ratio to c for energy of motion. In a frame time measurement is the same ratio for a cm as a km.

I am confused to my monumental error?

Imagine you're on an athletics track, 100m from the finish line. You can run at 10m/s (and you have a remarkable gift of being able to reach that speed in an instant from a standing start). There's another runner who will start 10m ahead of you in the race, but he can only run at 8.66m/s (a speed which he too can reach in an instant). How far will you have to run before you catch up with him? Can you really catch him after only 7.641m?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 24/05/2017 17:40:23
I do not think you viewed my latest last post.  My numbers are correct.

If they're correct, you should be able to insert them into the right places [between square brackets] in the following list:-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


You say that your latest numbers are correct, but I haven't seen you produce the right answers yet to put into (8 ) and (9), and those are the numbers you should be calculating. Also, you still haven't told me whether you agree with the number in square brackets for (7). Until these [= ...] parts remain unfilled with your numbers, you have not completed your assignment.

I am finding it hard to fill in the brackets because I am finding it hard to change to your way of doing it and still trying to understand so I  put the answers in the correct places.
I am getting close to understanding you, I understand you are saying it takes 2 thirds of second for one one event in which I replied 0.6666666s
In my last diagram I stopped the carriage at the next station allowing me to retain synchronous time by taking the delay out by being at rest in the station.

''(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]''

0.6666666s however that is the first part of my trip.




Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 17:44:47
Of course, if we wait till the dots hit the detector to send a new one, then there will be more time between the dots on the right diagram, but if we send them at one second interval on both diagrams, it seems to me that they will be detected at the same frequency on both detectors, because there will be no doppler effect to alter the frequency.

If you use a smaller light clock to govern the rate at which red dots are sent out from the laser, that rate will slow for the same reason the dots take longer to complete their journey through the MMX apparatus - the light clock governing their release will take twice as long to generate each tick. That means that light pulses will leave the laser twice as often on the stationary apparatus as they do on the one moving at 87%c.

Quote
Time depends on the frequencies of vibrating or rotating bodies, not on the distance they travel through the fabric of space during their rotation or vibration, so why would it depend on the distance light travels instead of depending on its frequency?

If your clock depends on something vibrating, its vibration rate will be slowed by its movement through space in the same way as light is slowed. The mechanism of all clocks involves communications at the speed of light, so they are all doing the same thing as a light clock - their mechanisms are merely disguised. If, for example, you have a piece of metal vibrating and producing a musical note, the ability of the material to slow, stop, accelerate the other way, slow, stop, accelerate back the way again, etc. is all governed by forces that apply at the speed of light, so if you increase the distance through space over which these forces are having to operate, you will slow their functionality to the same degree as with a light clock. The musical note will be an octave lower if the piece of metal is moving through space at 87%c, but anyone moving with it will have their functionality slowed to match, so they will not hear it as a lower pitch. So, you can wire up any kind of clock you like to the laser to govern the rate at which it pulses and it will tick half as often if it's moving through space at 87%c than if it's stationary.

Quote
It is not the distance the earth's surface travels in space that determines the sidereal day length, it's when the same star passes at the zenith. It is not the distance traveled by a pendulum that determines the tics of a clock either, it's when it passes in the middle of its course.

If you view the Earth from a frame of reference through which the Earth is moving at 87%c, you will see it take twice as long to rotate than if you view it from the frame in which the Earth is stationary. If the Earth is actually stationary relative to the fabric of space, what you see from the frame in which it appears to be moving at 87%c will be an illusion and it will actually be you that is living in slow motion, but if the Earth is actually moving at 87%c through the fabric of space, it really will be taking twice as long to rotate. The same thing applies to a pendulum - if the pendulum is sitting on a planet moving through space at 87%c, it will tick at half the rate of an identical pendulum sitting on an identical planet that's stationary.

The only way we could get a clock to tick at the same rate regardless of its speed of travel through space would be to make one that uses superluminal communications for the forces acting between its parts, but no such clocks have been invented, and they won't be invented until the speed of light barrier can be broken by something. Every clock has parts which influence each other by forces acting at the speed of light. The only things that might exist that have no separation between their parts cannot serve as clocks.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 17:55:23
I am finding it hard to fill in the brackets because I am finding it hard to change to your way of doing it and still trying to understand so I  put the answers in the correct places.
I am getting close to understanding you, I understand you are saying it takes 2 thirds of second for one one event in which I replied 0.6666666s
In my last diagram I stopped the carriage at the next station allowing me to retain synchronous time by taking the delay out by being at rest in the station.

''(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]''

0.6666666s however that is the first part of my trip.

If the first part of your trip is the part where the light is moving from the front of the train to the rear, then that's the 2/3 needed for (7), so you now appear to have agreed with it. You also appeared to be in agreement with all the points (1) to (6) that come before it. So, what you now need to do is calculate the numbers for (8 ) and (9). To do that, you need to work out how far the train travels in 2/3 of a second at 0.5c, and how far light travels in 2/3 of a second at c. You can do that. Maybe we'll be able to move onto the perpendicular clock some day soon too, because step (10 ) is easy to do - it's just a matter of adding together some of the numbers that you've already collected in the earlier points.

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= ...]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= ...]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 24/05/2017 18:15:42

What is a distance that cycles? Without time, how can it cycle?
A cycle is the distance light moves between mirrors and back. They are interchangeable.

 
Quote
If you think light can go from the rear of a 10cm to the front while the front is racing away from it and can catch up with it while only covering 7.461cm, you must be out of your tree. 

How did you know I had a tree house? Anyway if you are chasing a mirror with light and the mirror is moving at 0.866 then the light will catch the front mirror in the direction of travel in 0.7461 to 1 cm. 7.461 in 10 cm and 74.61 in 100 cm. Its just a ratio to one. Can you explain the problem I must be thick.

Imagine you're on an athletics track, 100m from the finish line. You can run at 10m/s (and you have a remarkable gift of being able to reach that speed in an instant from a standing start). There's another runner who will start 10m ahead of you in the race, but he can only run at 8.66m/s (a speed which he too can reach in an instant). How far will you have to run before you catch up with him? Can you really catch him after only 7.641m?
[/quote]

Hint, The front mirror had a head start.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 19:48:00

What is a distance that cycles? Without time, how can it cycle?
A cycle is the distance light moves between mirrors and back. They are interchangeable.

A cycle involves movement or change which is carried out over time. A distance doesn't.

Quote
Anyway if you are chasing a mirror with light and the mirror is moving at 0.866 then the light will catch the front mirror in the direction of travel in 0.7461 to 1 cm. 7.461 in 10 cm and 74.61 in 100 cm. Its just a ratio to one. Can you explain the problem I must be thick.

It will catch it in 0.7461 what? Are you seriously telling me that the light moves 7.461cm from the back of the carriage and somehow manages to catch the front of the carriage at that point even though the carriage started 10cm ahead of it and has moved further on ahead during the time the light has moved 7.461cm? I don't know how you get it to pull off that trick.

Quote
Quote
Imagine you're on an athletics track, 100m from the finish line. You can run at 10m/s (and you have a remarkable gift of being able to reach that speed in an instant from a standing start). There's another runner who will start 10m ahead of you in the race, but he can only run at 8.66m/s (a speed which he too can reach in an instant). How far will you have to run before you catch up with him? Can you really catch him after only 7.641m?

Hint, The front mirror had a head start.

Yes, and so does the runner (representing the mirror) that you (representing the light) are chasing on the track. You run 7.461m and are still short of where the other runner started, but he's run further on ahead during that time. It is not credible that you could be so stupid as to think you could catch him so soon, so the only rational explanation of what's going on here is that you're playing avoidance games as you don't like where the maths is leading you, and if you're going to go on doing that, I'm not going to waste any more of my time discussing this stuff with you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 24/05/2017 20:05:49
I am finding it hard to fill in the brackets because I am finding it hard to change to your way of doing it and still trying to understand so I  put the answers in the correct places.
I am getting close to understanding you, I understand you are saying it takes 2 thirds of second for one one event in which I replied 0.6666666s
In my last diagram I stopped the carriage at the next station allowing me to retain synchronous time by taking the delay out by being at rest in the station.

''(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]''

0.6666666s however that is the first part of my trip.
. So, what you now need to do is calculate the numbers for (8 ) and (9). To do that, you need to work out how far the train travels in 2/3 of a second at 0.5c, and how far light travels in 2/3 of a second at c. You can do that. Maybe we'll be able to move onto the perpendicular clock some day soon too, because step (10 ) is easy to do - it's just a matter of adding together some of the numbers that you've already collected in the earlier points.



Oh you mean 199861638.667m  and 49965409.6667m

added - I am not happy the second amount is correct so have re-done it below

(299792458/3)*2=2/3 ? = 199861638.667m?

199861638.667/2=99930819.3333   m?

p.s I quite like learning and have to work things out, thank you for the mental exercises.

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d = 99930819.3333   m

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d = 199861638.667m


8+9=299792458m   

Sorry for taking my time with the correct answer, it did not sink in right away what you was asking.

added- no, my second answer is still wrong....
 (8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d =49965409.6667m   

My first answer was correct after all.

669f179fefa6c40252b61b4cdf36798d.gif/2=.5c d1/3

added- lol now I am unsure, perhaps I should clear my mind and start again .   

added - sorry I was seeing your question ambiguously , I think you are just asking for one third of the distance which is 99930819.3333m.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 21:16:06
The numbers you've put in for (8 ) and (9) are now correct...although you've subsequently edited in an alternative answer for (8 ) which is wrong. If you decide to go with the correct answer, then it'll just be number (10 ) left to deal with, and there are three numbers needed there:-

The first one can be found by adding your answer to (4) to your answer for (7) because the time for the entire round trip is going to be the time taken for the first part of the trip plus the time for the second part of the trip.

The second number you need to calculate is the total distance that the light has travelled through space during the round trip, so you need to add your answer for (6) to your answer for (9).

The final number you need to calculate is the total distance that the train has travelled through space during the round trip, so you need to add your answer for (5) to your answer to (8 ). The number you produce for this should be half the size of the distance that your light has travelled.


(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= 99,930,819.3333]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= 199,861638.667]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...m] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...m], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


If you can fill in the missing three numbers in (10 ) and if they are compatible with my numbers, we will have reached agreement on how the non-perpendicular light clock behaves, and then we'll be able to move on to the second half of the process where we explore the performance of the perpendicular light clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 24/05/2017 21:34:31
The numbers you've put in for (8 ) and (9) are now correct...although you've subsequently edited in an alternative answer for (8 ) which is wrong. If you decide to go with the correct answer, then it'll just be number (10 ) left to deal with, and there are three numbers needed there:-

The first one can be found by adding your answer to (4) to your answer for (7) because the time for the entire round trip is going to be the time taken for the first part of the trip plus the time for the second part of the trip.

The second number you need to calculate is the total distance that the light has travelled through space during the round trip, so you need to add your answer for (6) to your answer for (9).

The final number you need to calculate is the total distance that the train has travelled through space during the round trip, so you need to add your answer for (5) to your answer to (8 ). The number you produce for this should be half the size of the distance that your light has travelled.


(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= 99,930,819.3333]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= 199,861638.667]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= ...s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= ...m] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= ...m], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.


If you can fill in the missing three numbers in (10 ) and if they are compatible with my numbers, we will have reached agreement on how the non-perpendicular light clock behaves, and then we'll be able to move on to the second half of the process where we explore the performance of the perpendicular light clock.

10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t = 2.6666666666s

The light has moved 2 2/3d = 799446554.667m through space

The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d = 399723277.333m

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 24/05/2017 21:56:10
So, the final version of assignment 1 (the light clock aligned with its direction of travel) is as follows, and we appear to be in agreement on it (for now, at least):-

(1) Length of vehicle = d [= 299,792,458m]

(2) Time for light to travel distance d = t [= 1s]

(3) Time for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2t [= 2s]

(4) Time for light to make first part of trip when vehicle moving at 0.5c = 2t [= 2s]
(Front of vehicle was ahead of light by d and moving at 0.5c while light is moving at c, so light is gaining on front of vehicle at 0.5c and will take 2t to catch it.)

(5) Distance vehicle has moved by this point = d [= 299,792,458m]
(The light moved 2d and the vehicle moved half that.)

(6) Distance light has moved by this point = 2d [= 2 x 299,792,458m]

(7) Time for light to make second part of trip = 2/3t [= 2/3s]
(This time we add the speeds together instead of subtracting, so it's a "closing speed" of 1.5c to cover distance d.)

(8 ) Distance vehicle has moved during the time the light was coming back = 1/3d [= 99,930,819.3333]

(9) Distance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3d [= 199,861638.667]

(10 ) We now have a round trip for the light completed in 2 2/3t [= 2.6666666666s]. The light has moved 2 2/3d [= 799,446,554.667m] through space. The vehicle has moved a total of 1 1/3d [= 399723277.333m], which is half the distance the light travelled, and that's no surprise as the light was moving twice as fast as the vehicle.

_________________________________________________________________


Before we move on to assignment 2, there's just important thing we should try to find agreement on now. When we compare the moving light clock on our train with an identical one that's stationary, we will see the stationary clock complete a tick in 2 seconds, but the moving clock won't complete its tick until 2 2/3 of a second have gone by, so the moving clock is ticking at a slower rate than the stationary one. Are you prepared to agree with that.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 24/05/2017 21:59:52


_________________________________________________________________


Before we move on to assignment 2, there's just important thing we should try to find agreement on now. When we compare the moving light clock on our train with an identical one that's stationary, we will see the stationary clock complete a tick in 2 seconds, but the moving clock won't complete its tick until 2 2/3 of a second have gone by, so the moving clock is ticking at a slower rate than the stationary one. Are you prepared to agree with that.


Yes, at this stage you have been objective, you have not tried to add anymore than it is, the stationary clock ticks faster than the clock in motion.

added - however they are still synchronous. While the stationary clock measures 2 seconds, the light in the clock in motion is in the 2 second position although it as not reached the detector.

p.s my previous diagram
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 24/05/2017 22:10:28

* ruler3.jpg (125.04 kB . 1765x505 - viewed 2237 times)

The stationary clock will read 2.6666666s when the clock in motion reads 2 seconds.   The 2.66666s would be the correct time. 2s=2.666666s
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/05/2017 22:22:49
Quote from: David
If you use a smaller light clock to govern the rate at which red dots are sent out from the laser, that rate will slow for the same reason the dots take longer to complete their journey through the MMX apparatus - the light clock governing their release will take twice as long to generate each tick.
We don't really know what produces the light frequencies that we observe, but I suspect that atoms are not using light clocks to produce them. For the moment, light clocks are only mind experiments that help us to understand motion, they might not exist at all in nature, and we might not even be able to make one if we tried. What about a laser, can it make a light clock? Not really, because its frequency does not depend on the distance between the mirrors, it depends on the frequency emitted by its atoms. Can two hydrogen atoms forming a molecule constitute a light clock? If one of the wavelengths they emit was the same as their bond length, we could imagine that they use it to stay on sync, but could they do so while traveling through aether since light would take more time one way than the other? I think so, because there would be no doppler effect between them, because the length added or subtracted to the wave at emission would be exactly cancelled by the one subtracted or added to it at detection, which means that the two atoms could still use that light to stay on sync whatever their speed through aether and whatever their position with regard to the motion. By the way, that wavelength would be in the hard x-rays range, so it could be produced by the inner electrons, and it is also close to the bonding energy of such a molecule.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 24/05/2017 22:26:26
Quote from: David
If you use a smaller light clock to govern the rate at which red dots are sent out from the laser, that rate will slow for the same reason the dots take longer to complete their journey through the MMX apparatus - the light clock governing their release will take twice as long to generate each tick.
We don't really know what produces the light frequencies that we observe, but I suspect that atoms are not using light clocks to produce them. For the moment, light clocks are only mind experiments that help us to understand motion, they might not exist at all in nature, and we might not even be able to make one if we tried. What about a laser, can it make a light clock? Not really, because its frequency does not depend on the distance between the mirrors, it depends on the frequency emitted by its atoms. Can two hydrogen atoms forming a molecule constitute a light clock? If one of the wavelengths they emit was the same as their bond length, we could imagine that they use it to stay on sync, but could they do so while traveling through aether since light would take more time one way than the other? I think so, because there would be no doppler effect between them, because the length added or subtracted to the wave at emission would be exactly cancelled by the one subtracted or added to it at detection, which means that the two atoms could still use that light to stay on sync whatever their speed through aether and whatever their position with regard to the motion. By the way, that wavelength would be in the hard x-rays range, so it could be produced by the inner electrons, and it is also close to the bonding energy of such a molecule.
We can make a light clock by using a strobe emitting at a constant speed over a constant distance. Not even that difficult to be honest. 
Using the rate of detection to measure time, the rate would always be constant.
FLASH,DETECT,FLASH,DETECT,FLASH, DETECT, TICK AND TOCK


Also this is a way to physically measure the speed of light.


detect...............detect...............detect
..........time....................time..................

t=d

Imagine a device that is 10 meters long, at one end a strobe emitting 1 pulse every 10 seconds.

Now imagine at the other end of the device is a detector, it will detect 1 pulse every 10m travelled.

At this stage we do not know the speed of light.

However we have a graph running at detector end, the space between detects represents the 10 meters the light has travelled, of course we also have a time line on the graph so we can work out how long it took for the light to travel the 10 m.
We then can work out the speed.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/05/2017 00:43:54
Okay then: it's time for Assignment 2 - the perpendicular light clock:-

This time we have to put our clock sideways across the train so that it is aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, but there's no reason why you shouldn't use a much bigger train and make this one as wide as the previous train was long. I will continue to work with my own numbers and you can see how well yours match up with mine. The maths involves very few stages this time, but it may use methods that you aren't yet comfortable with.

Before we can start crunching any numbers, we need to think about how light is going to get from one mirror to the other when movement of the train will mean that it has to travel at an angle if it's to hit the mirrors rather than going perpendicular to the train and landing where the mirrors used to be instead. If you look at the laser in my interactive diagrams of the MMX again ( http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html ) you will see that it is aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, but its sideways movement steers the light inside it into following the correct angle of path needed to take it to where the mirror is going to be so that the light can hit it successfully.

You can easily see that the angle at which the light actually goes through space will not be perpendicular to the train, but the angle is also different for different speeds of travel by the train. If the train moves at 0.5c, the angle of the light's path will be 30 degrees to the perpendicular, whereas if the train moves at 0.866c the angle will be 60 degrees instead. However, you should insist on seeing proof that it has to go at those angles for those speeds, and you will then need to have an efficient mathematical method to apply to work out which angles go with which speeds.

You should maybe start with a trial-and-error method on a piece of paper as that will allow you to test different angles. Draw the two mirrors in their initial positions (which you can label as A and B), then draw parallel lines from them right across the paper running in the direction in which the train is moving. Then move the train the distance you think it might move in one tick of the clock at 0.5c and mark where the mirrors will be once it's moved that far (with these points labelled as A" and B"). Once you've done that, you should draw the mirrors again where they would be with the train half way between those two positions (labelling them as A' and B'). You can now draw a line at an angle from A to B' and another line from B' to A". Then get a ruler and measure those two lines. They should be the same length as each other every time you do this. Add them together. If the angle is right for that speed of travel of the train, the length you have just measured for the two sloping lines should be exactly twice the distance the train has moved. I've drawn a diagram of my own to give you an idea of what will happen, so see the attachment below. The red attempt failed because the distance light has to travel along on the sloping red lines is much longer than twice the length of the horizontal red line at the bottom. The black attempt also failed because the combined length of the sloping black lines is less than twice as long as the horizontal black line at the bottom. The blue attempt looks reasonably good though - it was drawn without measuring anything, so it'll be slightly out, but it's clearly giving us an angle close to the predicted 30 degree angle.

How can we actually calculate the correct angle mathematically then? If you start at the blue B' and draw a vertical line downwards from there until it hits the horizontal line that the A mirror moves along (and by chance it will hit it near to where I put the red A" mirror location), it will hit that line at 90 degrees, so we have a right-angled triangle (with the corners A, blue B' and a point next to or possibly right on top of red A"). We also know that the height of this new line is the width of the train, so that's a known length. Perhaps we can apply that funny soh cah toa trig stuff using sin, cos or tan on a calculator. We don't know the angle the light goes at yet because that's what we're trying to work out, so we need another length before we can apply trig. We don't know how far the train will go before the light can get back to the first mirror to complete a cycle, so we don't have the length of the horizontal side of the triangle, except that we do know that the light must go exactly twice as far as the mirror does if the train's moving at 0.5c.

Aha! It turns out that we don't even need to use the length of the vertical line on the triangle running from the blue A' to the red B" because we already know the ratio of the other two sides to each other: the length from A to the red B" is half as long as the length from A to the blue B', and so long as we use numbers related to each other by the right ratio for these two lines, we are guaranteed to get the correct angle out of this. So, let's call the horizontal line on the triangle 0.5 and the sloping line 1. We can then apply the soh (sine of the angle = opposite over hypotenuse) or cah (cosine of the angle = adjacent over hypotenuse) rules to calculate the other angles of the triangle. With soh we can get the angle at blue A' (between the sloping side of the triangle and the vertical line running down from there): sine of that angle = opposite/hypotenuse, so that's 0.5/1, and that equals 0.5. So, we simply use arcsin(0.5) on a calculator to get the angle, and the calculator spits out the number 30. That's our 30 degrees. To find the function arcsin on a scientific calculator, you usually have to press a key with shift, inv (inverse) or 2ndf (second function) followed by the key with "sin" on it. With some calculators you would type the 0.5 in first and then type inv and sin, but on other calculators you have to type shift sin first and then type in the 0.5.

[The cah route gives you the other angle: arccosine of the angle at A = 0.5/1, so again it's just a matter of typing 0.5 inv cos or shift cos 0.5, and the calculator gives us the answer 60 degrees.]

This method works for any speed of the train, so if it's going at 0.866c, we know the ratio of its speed to the speed of light and the distances they both travel will be 0.866 to 1. Again we can do arcsin 0.866/1, and again the number we're dividing by is 1, so it makes no difference to the 0.866. The result is that all we need do is type 0.866 inv sin, or shift sin 0.866 and the calculator will give us the answer 60 degrees for the angle at the top of the triangle.

If you don't have a scientific calculator and don't know how to find the one that's likely included with your operating system, you can use my JavaScript one online instead: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/maths/3.html - it has an inv/2nd button, but it also has direct asin, acos and atan buttons which you can use instead. So, type 0.5 or 0.866 or any other speed for the train into it and then click on the asin button to get the angle the light goes at relative to a line perpendicular to the direction of travel of the train.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 25/05/2017 09:19:06
Okay then: it's time for Assignment 2 - the perpendicular light clock:-

This time we have to put our clock sideways across the train so that it is aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, but there's no reason why you shouldn't use a much bigger train and make this one as wide as the previous train was long. I will continue to work with my own numbers and you can see how well yours match up with mine. The maths involves very few stages this time, but it may use methods that you aren't yet comfortable with.



Ok, before I start , you do realise that if the train travels down a  slope it makes it easier to measure the light?



* tri.jpg (5.28 kB . 421x458 - viewed 2210 times)


You do also realise light does not do this?

My answer at a glance , 

at rest

5.s one way trip

10.s round trip

in motion
3.s
7.s return
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 25/05/2017 09:31:16
Yea that is my answers


* tri1.jpg (8.75 kB . 421x458 - viewed 2199 times)

Now I have given the answer to the angle I provided without knowing the speed of the carriage, however I am sure with it being maths, I can get the results to fit a speed of the carriage.
However before we move on from the last assignment , you still avoided my question, I am still waiting for the proof of the physical contraction you claim exists.  I have not observed anything of the wow factor thus far, this is pretty basic stuff.

p.s the answer to assignment 2 is a variate relative to the dimensions of the carriage.



* size.jpg (15.26 kB . 421x458 - viewed 2213 times)




Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 25/05/2017 15:03:06
Quote from: TheBox
We can make a light clock by using a strobe emitting at a constant speed over a constant distance....
Also this is a way to physically measure the speed of light.
I think the only way to measure the speed of light one way would be to use atomic clocks, but to synchronize those clocks while they are traveling in aether, we would need to know the exact speed and direction they travel with regard to it, because the synchronization signal would take more time one way than the other, but we don't know our speed in the aether, so if it exists, or if light propagates as if it was the case, I'm afraid this experiment is impossible to make.

Quote from: David
If you look at the laser in my interactive diagrams of the MMX again ( http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html ) you will see that it is aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, but its sideways movement steers the light inside it into following the correct angle of path needed to take it to where the mirror is going to be so that the light can hit it successfully.
I thought that we had an agreement on that on Facebook, but it seems that I did not understand properly what you meant. You said: (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1390222324396380&id=980220742063209&comment_id=1390316931053586&notif_t=feed_comment&notif_id=1495130883357215)

«As you say, a stationary observer to the side of the runway (and some way away from it) who caught a glimpse of the laser light would see it as coming from further back down the runway before the vehicles reach the point of closest approach, and he would see the vehicles back there at the same time, even if they are by that time at the point of closest approach and far ahead of where he sees them. That is quite different from an observer in one of the cars who sees the other car where it actually is even though the light he's seeing from it has come to his eyes from further behind.»

I thought you meant that, for the two observers in the cars, aberration would avoid them to observe the real direction of the light they exchange, which to me, meant that it would still had to be aimed at their future position to hit them, thus that if they used lasers, they would have to be tilted towards that position. Of course, this possibility raises a problem: to tilt the laser towards the right direction, we need to know our direction in aether, and we don't know.


Anybody knows why [nofollow] pops out after every link I put?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/05/2017 17:51:19
Quote from: David
If you use a smaller light clock to govern the rate at which red dots are sent out from the laser, that rate will slow for the same reason the dots take longer to complete their journey through the MMX apparatus - the light clock governing their release will take twice as long to generate each tick.
We don't really know what produces the light frequencies that we observe, but I suspect that atoms are not using light clocks to produce them.

The speed of light is also the speed of force - the atoms are held together by forces which act at the speed of light, so the exact same delays apply to those. If you move an atom through space, its functionality is slowed. It is not a light clock, but a force clock, and the two are directly equivalent.

Quote
For the moment, light clocks are only mind experiments that help us to understand motion, they might not exist at all in nature, and we might not even be able to make one if we tried.

There is nothing to stop light clocks being made. A one gigahertz processor has a clock rate of a billionth of a second. During that time, light only moves the length of a ruler. Also, the MMX is essentially a pair of light clocks, so it goes beyond thought experiments into actual measurements. We can also make radio clocks where we send signals to and fro between two points and use them as light clocks, and I do mean light, because if you were to run into radio waves fast enough, you would be able to see them as light.

Quote
What about a laser, can it make a light clock? Not really, because its frequency does not depend on the distance between the mirrors, it depends on the frequency emitted by its atoms.

That frequency is dictated by the tick rate of a force clock, and a force clock behaves exactly like a light clock because they are governed by the same speed limit.

Quote
I think the only way to measure the speed of light one way would be to use atomic clocks

That won't work because they are force clocks.

Quote
I thought you meant that, for the two observers in the cars, aberration would avoid them to observe the real direction of the light they exchange, which to me, meant that it would still had to be aimed at their future position to hit them, thus that if they used lasers, they would have to be tilted towards that position. Of course, this possibility raises a problem: to tilt the laser towards the right direction, we need to know our direction in aether, and we don't know.

There is no need to point the laser anywhere other than perpendicular to the direction of travel - the angle the light actually follows is dictated by the movement of the laser while the light is moving through it (and indeed before that in the mechanism of how the light is emitted in the first place). This relates to the "headlights effect". If you have a light bulb in the middle of a square room and you move the room at relativistic speed, one of the walls may be moving directly away from the light that's chasing it from the bulb, and the opposite wall is racing directly towards the light coming at it from the bulb, but all four (or six) walls remain equally brightly lit because the movement of the bulb through space affects the way light is spread from it with more of the light being projected forwards. An attempt by an emitter to throw a photon directly sideways will fail because of the movement of the emitter - its own speed of movement in its direction of travel is automatically passed on to the photon, affecting the angle it leaves it in.

If you were to change the alignment of the moving laser, light would not leave it in line with the laser unless the laser's pointing directly forwards or backwards, so if you aim the laser at where the target is going to be rather than at where it currently is, it will hit a point far ahead of where the target will be.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 25/05/2017 19:05:09
Ok, before I start , you do realise that if the train travels down a  slope it makes it easier to measure the light?

No, I don't realise that, and your numbers don't appear to realise it either.

Now I have given the answer to the angle I provided without knowing the speed of the carriage, however I am sure with it being maths, I can get the results to fit a speed of the carriage.

How can you possibly calculate the angle without involving the speed of the carriage in the calculation?

Quote
However before we move on from the last assignment , you still avoided my question, I am still waiting for the proof of the physical contraction you claim exists.  I have not observed anything of the wow factor thus far, this is pretty basic stuff.

I've answered that many times before, but you clearly weren't ready to take it in. Remember the five points that I made in post #134:-

(A) A moving clock records fewer ticks than a stationary one in a given length of time, so it is not recording time, but is merely counting cycles. That is what all clocks do.

(B) A light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of movement therefore records fewer ticks than a stationary clock.

(C) An uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel (rather than perpendicular to it) will record fewer ticks than a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(D) A correctly length-contracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel will record the same number of ticks as a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(E) The null result of the MMX shows that the real universe length-contracts things in their direction of travel.

Once you have generated the right numbers for assignment 2, you'll be able to compare the two moving light clocks and see that the perpendicular one ticks more often than the other. The MMX shows that this is not how the universe works because real light clocks which move along together always tick at the same rate as each other regardless of their alignment. We also know that the slowing of real clocks matches up to the perpendicular clock's predicted behaviour and not to the predicted behaviour of uncontracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel.

Quote
p.s the answer to assignment 2 is a variate relative to the dimensions of the carriage.

Your perpendicular light clock should be the same length as the one used in assignment 1 so that you can easily compare the numbers you get from the two assignments. Your job here is to work out how far the train moves at 0.5c while the light travels from mirror A to the far mirror (B') and back to the first one again (A"), and you need to know how to calculate the angle that the light moves away from the perpendicular. I told you how the angle can be calculated and I was hoping that you'd let me know whether you understand that method or not. If you want to find your own method for doing it, that's fine, but for it to be valid it will need to generate the same numbers. We will be stuck here until you understand the method I've spelt out to you, so I'll go through it again with a new diagram.

We want to calculate the angle x. We have a right angled triangle, but the only side of that triangle with a known length is the vertical line B'A' which has a length of d [= 299,792,458m]. However, we do know the ratio of the lengths of AA' to AB' because we know the ratio of the speed of the train to the speed of light, and that ratio is 0.5:1.

The trig rule soh tells us that sine(x) = AA'/AB'. We don't yet know the lengths AA' or AB', but we do know their ratio, so we can simply use the numbers from that ratio: sine(x) = 0.5/1. Because we're dividing a number by 1, the result will be unchanged, so we now have sine(x) = 0.5. All we need to do now is use a calculator to find x by typing in a sequence such as 0.5 inv sin or shift sin 0.5 (depending on the order the calculator wants you to press the keys in.

Having done that and got the number 30 degrees from the calculator, we can now set about working out the actual lengths of the lines AA' and AB'. The only real length we know for the triangle is the vertical line A'B', but that's enough to do the rest now as we also have an angle to work with. All we need to do is apply more trig: tan(x) = AA'/A'B', and cosine(x) =  A'B'/AB'. We can rearrange those a little before we pick up the calculator (and note that I'm going to use an asterisk for the multiplication symbol to avoid confusion with the angle x): AA' =  tan(x) * A'B', and AB' = A'B'/cos(x). Now the calculator is used: AA' = 0.57735, and AB' = 1.1547. Note that I have used 1 as the length of A'B' because my length unit is d, and d = 299,792,458m. To fit with all your previous calculations, you should use 299792458 instead of 1 so that your answers come out in metres.

If you double 0.57735, you'll get 1.1547, so these answers fit with the 0.5:1 ratio that we expect them to. The lower mirror has moved from A to A" by the time the light returns to it from the top mirror, so the train has moved 1.1547d and the light has moved 2.3094d. To convert those to metres, again you'd need to multiply them by 299792458. One tick of this moving clock will take 2.3094t, and as my time unit is a second long, that's 2.3094s.

We now have three tick rates. The stationary clock ticks once every 2 seconds. The moving clock from assignment 1 ticks once for every 2 2/3 seconds of the stationary clock. The moving clock from assignment 2 ticks once for every 2.3094 seconds of the stationary clock.

Now, lets see how many pages of posts it takes you to get up to speed with that. On the up side though, it looks as if you might reach the finish line before GoC, which no one reading this thread at the start would ever have predicted.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 25/05/2017 20:44:17
If you learn to use graphics, the problems are greatly simplified, the solutions more obvious, and less calculation.
For typical uniform motion, a horizontal x axis for object motion, and a vertical ct axis for light motion. Using a light clock with oscillation perpendicular to x, ct equals the total distance light moved inside the clock. If an object moved at c, it would move equal distances on both axes, i.e. at 45 (blue). This restricts object motion from 0 (vertical)  to less than 45. The dark lines are objects, the light lines are for measurements.

The rest frame is U , with its description on the left.
An observer A, at the midpoint of a ship moving at .5 (c=1), is represented by the line 0-At. A measures the distance to a forward mirror as d=1. At t=0 light signals are sent from A, forward and backward. If a mirror was at the back an equal distance d, light would arrive there at event R2 and light would arrive at the front mirror at event R1. For the forward path, light returns to A, event D. Rotating the forward path 180 about the midpoint H shows both trips are equal. If A assumes a pseudo rest frame, then R1 and R2 establishes an axis of simultaneity for A, 0-Ax.
In the U-frame, the ship has contracted to s and the A-clock is running slower than the U-clock by 1/gamma. (1/g=sqrt(.75)=.866)
M is a distance marker in the U frame that is coincident with the event R1.

In the pseudo rest frame A:
Ut for event D is 2gt. Since At=Ut/g, At=2t. If s=d/g, then d=gs=1.
Event R1 occurred at At=d/c=1.
A thinks the return event occurred earlier at event D' which implies R1 and M are closer by the ratio of 2t/2gt=1/g, Based on his clock, A thinks the world outside has contracted by 1/g including his ship.
https://app.box.com/s/1dua6bzj0e4gx4aigrfb7k4pkohpr7nj
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 25/05/2017 20:59:15
Quote from: David
The speed of light is also the speed of force
With aether, once a moving laser would emit a light pulse, the laser would progressively leave the place in aether where the pulse had been emitted, and it is at that place that an observer at rest would see the laser beam if it had been pointing at him at emission. This is what happens when we see a plane: we hear it where it was, not where we see it, and in the same token, we don't really see it where it is because it takes time for light to reach us, so if some laser light was sent from the plane to somewhere else than where we are, it would simply miss us. It is so for sound because sound waves go straight line in air after having been emitted, so light waves should behave the same in aether if it exists. But this is not what the inertial frame principle means:  a moving inertial frame can be considered not to be moving, in such a way that light can be considered to travel sideways through space in the light clock mind experiment, so it manifestly doesn't fit with aether. With aether, a laser beam aimed at 90 degree between our two moving cars would miss us if we would travel fast enough or if we were far enough from one another.

I understand what you mean when you say that the speed of light would affect the forces though, but to me, with no doppler effect and no aberration to account for inside the same moving frame, whatever the speed of that frame, the light waves exchanged between two observers at rest inside the frame would always appear to carry the same energy and would always appear to come from the actual position of the source. Of course, the intensity of a wave lessens with distance, so the forces should lessen a bit for bodies moving through aether, but that effect has a lot less impact on energy than frequency, and frequency would not be affected. In my theory on motion here (http://"https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg446148#msg446148"), the frequency of the steps also stays the same while they get longer, thus while the speed increases, but light also loses some intensity while it travels from one particle to the other, and that loss cannot be accounted for by the steps, so I figured it could be attributed to gravitation because it would necessarily escape from the standing wave between the two particles. Here are those steps caused by the limited speed of the information between two bonded particles.
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 25/05/2017 22:30:55
David,

   Sorry I got busy again. You were correct and I was incorrect about light going 7.461 cell lengths (length between mirrors in this case) in ratio rather than 0.7461 length in one cell. My background is analytical chemistry and Cell length  had a different thought process. And you agreed with my decimal point for the return cell length with your numbers of 0.539. The total length of 7.5 cell lengths for light to travel its cycle. This leaves us with 8.66 cell lengths for the side ways mirror. So we haven't reached the peak of the triangle at 7.5 cell lengths of time.

Quote from: David
The speed of light is also the speed of force
With aether, once a moving laser would emit a light pulse, the laser would progressively leave the place in aether where the pulse had been emitted, and it is at that place that an observer at rest would see the laser beam if it had been pointing at him at emission. This is what happens when we see a plane: we hear it where it was, not where we see it, and in the same token, we don't really see it where it is because it takes time for light to reach us, so if some laser light was sent from the plane to somewhere else than where we are, it would simply miss us. It is so for sound because sound waves go straight line in air after having been emitted, so light waves should behave the same in aether if it exists. But this is not what the inertial frame principle means:  a moving inertial frame can be considered not to be moving, in such a way that light can be considered to travel sideways through space in the light clock mind experiment, so it manifestly doesn't fit with aether. With aether, a laser beam aimed at 90 degree between our two moving cars would miss us if we would travel fast enough or if we were far enough from one another.

I understand what you mean when you say that the speed of light would affect the forces though, but to me, with no doppler effect and no aberration to account for inside the same moving frame, whatever the speed of that frame, the light waves exchanged between two observers at rest inside the frame would always appear to carry the same energy and would always appear to come from the actual position of the source. Of course, the intensity of a wave lessens with distance, so the forces should lessen a bit for bodies moving through aether, but that effect has a lot less impact on energy than frequency, and frequency would not be affected. In my theory on motion here (http://"https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg446148#msg446148"), the frequency of the steps also stays the same while they get longer, thus while the speed increases, but light also loses some intensity while it travels from one particle to the other, and that loss cannot be accounted for by the steps, so I figured it could be attributed to gravitation because it would necessarily escape from the standing wave between the two particles. Here are those steps caused by the limited speed of the information between two bonded particles.
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)

Your missing the point of light being independent of the source. In the original Aether where particles were stationary in space without spin your understanding would be correct. But if there is Aether spin of c by the particles relativity has a cause while quantum mechanics has an energy pattern regulating relativity.

In this case energy is independent of mass while mass is the source.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 00:03:23
Quote from: David
The speed of light is also the speed of force
With aether, once a moving laser would emit a light pulse, the laser would progressively leave the place in aether where the pulse had been emitted, and it is at that place that an observer at rest would see the laser beam if it had been pointing at him at emission.

Correct, and a moving observer who is for a moment at the same location as the stationary observer and who is keeping pace with the laser would see the same laser light as coming from where the laser now is rather than where the the light actually came from.

Quote
This is what happens when we see a plane: we hear it where it was, not where we see it,

It's worth remembering that if the light from the plane travelled at the speed of sound, you would see the plane further back too.

Quote
and in the same token, we don't really see it where it is because it takes time for light to reach us, so if some laser light was sent from the plane to somewhere else than where we are, it would simply miss us.

But to reach us, the laser has to be pointed slightly behind us (although planes aren't really far enough away for that to show up).

Quote
It is so for sound because sound waves go straight line in air after having been emitted, so light waves should behave the same in aether if it exists.

If you are moving in the same direction as the plane and at the same speed, you would (if you could somehow eliminate the racket from air rushing past your ears) hear the sound of the plane as coming from where you see the plane rather than from a long way behind it, even though the sound is coming to you from a long way behind where the plane now is.

If a powered "bullet" (one that can maintain speed and direction without being slowed by drag) was sent out from the plane at the speed of sound perpendicular to the direction of travel of the plane while you are moving along parallel to the plane's path and level with it, you can hold a two-layer target for the bullet to pass through (perhaps with the layers several yards apart) - the bullet will make two holes through the target, and when you look through those holes, you will see the plane. It's difficult to set out a really good parallel scenario though as the space fabric doesn't replicate the drag aspect.

Quote
But this is not what the inertial frame principle means:  a moving inertial frame can be considered not to be moving, in such a way that light can be considered to travel sideways through space in the light clock mind experiment, so it manifestly doesn't fit with aether. With aether, a laser beam aimed at 90 degree between our two moving cars would miss us if we would travel fast enough or if we were far enough from one another.

No - it would not miss. If the cars are on parallel paths and level with each other, they could be a whole lightyear apart and the laser light sent out from a perpendicular (to the direction of travel of the cars) laser would still hit the other car, as would a bullet sent out from a gun set up with the same alignment as the laser, though the bullet would follow a much more deviated angle than the light and would hit the other car the best part of a million years later. If you think the light has to follow the perpendicular just because the laser is pointing along the perpendicular, you are breaking the laws of nature by changing the momentum of the system.

Quote
I understand what you mean when you say that the speed of light would affect the forces though, but to me, with no doppler effect and no aberration to account for inside the same moving frame, whatever the speed of that frame, the light waves exchanged between two observers at rest inside the frame would always appear to carry the same energy and would always appear to come from the actual position of the source.

So why would you want to tinker with the alignment of the laser in my diagrams if you understand that?

Quote
Of course, the intensity of a wave lessens with distance, so the forces should lessen a bit for bodies moving through aether, but that effect has a lot less impact on energy than frequency, and frequency would not be affected.

Just as light is focused forwards more strongly and cancels out the difference, so must force be if the square room round a bulb is to retain the right shape for the walls to remain evenly lit. The MMX suggests that matter length-contracts in a manner consistent with forces and light behaving the same way in that regard.

Quote
In my theory on motion here[/url], the frequency of the steps also stays the same while they get longer, thus while the speed increases, but light also loses some intensity while it travels from one particle to the other, and that loss cannot be accounted for by the steps, so I figured it could be attributed to gravitation because it would necessarily escape from the standing wave between the two particles. Here are those steps caused by the limited speed of the information between two bonded particles.

I haven't read your theory yet (your links are disabled for some reason, even though one of them is to this forum - perhaps this is related to your low post count and could be part of an anti-spam mechanism), but the light intensity should adjust automatically for the speed of the system through means of the headlights effect, so there shouldn't be any apparent change to account for.

Edit:-

There's an error in what I said here:-

Quote
If you are moving in the same direction as the plane and at the same speed, you would (if you could somehow eliminate the racket from air rushing past your ears) hear the sound of the plane as coming from where you see the plane rather than from a long way behind it, even though the sound is coming to you from a long way behind where the plane now is.

In terms of the volume in each ear, it would be equal, but there would be a time delay between one ear and the other hearing it. That delay would only be cancelled out if the processing in the brain that measures the timings of the signals from each ear operated with delays of its own acting at the speed of sound, but they are not restricted to such a slow speed, and that means the plane would likely be heard some way behind where it's seen, though the equality of volume in each ear might reduce the apparent separation. Most importantly though, if we're using this case as an analogy for what happens with laser light, we don't have an equivalent case unless we introduce superluminal speeds in the processing of timings, so there is no equivalent way of detecting delays from one sensor to another one ahead of it if the signal's coming in from a co-moving source that's level with the sensors.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 00:21:06
The total length of 7.5 cell lengths for light to travel its cycle. This leaves us with 8.66 cell lengths for the side ways mirror. So we haven't reached the peak of the triangle at 7.5 cell lengths of time.

If you 7.5 cell lengths you mean just under 75cm, then you're getting there, but where do you get your 8.66 cell length figure from for the perpendicular light clock? The distance travelled by the train during the time taken for light to go from one mirror to the other on the perpendicular light clock is only 17.32cm (because tan(60)=opp/10cm, so opp=10tan(60)cm).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 26/05/2017 16:07:11
The total length of 7.5 cell lengths for light to travel its cycle. This leaves us with 8.66 cell lengths for the side ways mirror. So we haven't reached the peak of the triangle at 7.5 cell lengths of time.

If you 7.5 cell lengths you mean just under 75cm, then you're getting there, but where do you get your 8.66 cell length figure from for the perpendicular light clock? The distance travelled by the train during the time taken for light to go from one mirror to the other on the perpendicular light clock is only 17.32cm (because tan(60)=opp/10cm, so opp=10tan(60)cm).

First of all I understand your physical contraction of mass and how that corrects for equilateral light paths on a 90 degree path to motion. That is what I was taught. I do not agree with what I was taught. All you are doing is force fitting the paths of light to be the same in both directions. This fudge factor is just that a fudge factor. Lets go back to the MMX. The most accurate way to measure distance is with light. So you measure the direction of travel and you get a mile. You measure the other distance perpendicular to the direction of travel and you measure a mile. When you do the test you get a null result. This is no different than measuring the same speed of light in any frame. Of course you get a null result. Your set up was meaningless to begin with. None of your tests can pass the test of significance. So your physical contraction is based on an insignificant measurement.

Now lets look at sound again as relative to the Aether. If we have the air molecules perfectly still except for the electrons moving to transfer the sound we get a ratio of sound to distance in all directions. We have a stationary observer on the ground. When the plane is physically over head the sound just starts while the plane continues to go forward. We can use the same geometry with light. When the sound reaches you the visual position of the plane is forward of the position you hear. Now if you have two planes in parallel going the speed of sound and the sound being created in back of the pilots neither pilot could hear the sound of the other pilots engine. He might hear his own engine because he carries his own air inside the plane. Its unlikely that you can carry the Aether inside of a spaceship. So two pilots can go fast enough in space not to be able to view the other right next to you. If you looked forward in the spaceship the front of you would appear to go from 7.46 meters to 0.53 meters. Not because the distance changed physically but because light only took that distance to reach you. Your view would be magnified also because of the inverse square law would change your viewing distance.   
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 18:30:49
First of all I understand your physical contraction of mass and how that corrects for equilateral light paths on a 90 degree path to motion. That is what I was taught. I do not agree with what I was taught. All you are doing is force fitting the paths of light to be the same in both directions. This fudge factor is just that a fudge factor.

If you're now agreeing with the numbers, you should say so clearly. They show that an uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel ticks less often than an identical co-moving clock aligned perpendicular to it. The MMX is essentially such a pair of light clocks and it shows that the two clocks always remain in sync with each other. The tick rate of the perpendicular clock matches up to expectations. The tick rate of the other clock does not. We can account for the difference between the prediction and reality in a number of different ways, such as relying on magic, or by allowing light to go faster than c whenever something moves through space, but not allowing that faster speed to be exploited by other things in the same location for superluminal communication (which is ruddy hard when the exact same photons can be used by both systems, and even then there would be issues with things being where they manifestly aren't due to them being longer than they actually are), or you can go with the most sensible explanation and accept that objects simply contract in length in the exact manner that a full analysis of how the forces operate shows that they should contract, just as an orbit will contract due to some of the energy put in not showing up as movement, but as extra mass.

Quote
Lets go back to the MMX. The most accurate way to measure distance is with light. So you measure the direction of travel and you get a mile. You measure the other distance perpendicular to the direction of travel and you measure a mile. When you do the test you get a null result. This is no different than measuring the same speed of light in any frame. Of course you get a null result. Your set up was meaningless to begin with. None of your tests can pass the test of significance. So your physical contraction is based on an insignificant measurement.

That's just an assertion based on belief in voodoo. If you move the apparatus, you increase the distance that light has to travel to get through it, and that slows it down. If you don't have length-contraction operating on it, you won't always have a null result.

Quote
Now lets look at sound again as relative to the Aether. If we have the air molecules perfectly still except for the electrons moving to transfer the sound we get a ratio of sound to distance in all directions.

You might want to rewrite that bit so that it ties in with how sound actually propagates - no need to draw attention to electrons as you can just go with molecules of gas bumping into each other.

Quote
We have a stationary observer on the ground. When the plane is physically overhead the sound just starts while the plane continues to go forward. We can use the same geometry with light. When the sound reaches you the visual position of the plane is forward of the position you hear.

I edited a correction onto the end of post #163 which has some relevance to this. The analogy breaks down where two different speed limits are involved. With light, there is only one speed limit that can't be outgunned by any measurement apparatus which would need to use superluminal communications.

Quote
Now if you have two planes in parallel going the speed of sound and the sound being created in back of the pilots neither pilot could hear the sound of the other pilots engine. He might hear his own engine because he carries his own air inside the plane.

And this analogy breaks too because you can never get your vehicles up to the speed of light, meaning that light from behind can always catch them.

Quote
Its unlikely that you can carry the Aether inside of a spaceship. So two pilots can go fast enough in space not to be able to view the other right next to you.

That never happens - they always see each as other side by side.

Quote
If you looked forward in the spaceship the front of you would appear to go from 7.46 meters to 0.53 meters. Not because the distance changed physically but because light only took that distance to reach you. Your view would be magnified also because of the inverse square law would change your viewing distance.

That is nonsense - we would be able to detect that kind of visual change easily in the lab even at the relatively low speed the Earth goes round the sun, but no such visual warping occurs. Your problem is that you have come up with a wonderful theory of your own and you're determined to try to make nature conform to it rather than allowing nature to dictate the form of your theory. You are going against what nature does.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/05/2017 19:44:55
Quote from: David
The speed of light is also the speed of force
With aether, once a moving laser would emit a light pulse, the laser would progressively leave the place in aether where the pulse had been emitted, and it is at that place that an observer at rest would see the laser beam if it had been pointing at him at emission.
Correct, and a moving observer who is for a moment at the same location as the stationary observer and who is keeping pace with the laser would see the same laser light as coming from where the laser now is rather than where the the light actually came from.
Correct too, because that observer's speed in aether would produce aberration on the observed beam, and that by coincidence, that phenomenon would avoid him to know the real direction of the beam.

Quote from: David
Quote
This is what happens when we see a plane: we hear it where it was, not where we see it,
It's worth remembering that if the light from the plane traveled at the speed of sound, you would see the plane further back too.
Of course, and in this case, we would see it where we hear it.

Quote from: David
Quote
and in the same token, we don't really see it where it is because it takes time for light to reach us, so if some laser light was sent from the plane to somewhere else than where we are, it would simply miss us.
But to reach us, the laser has to be pointed slightly behind us (although planes aren't really far enough away for that to show up).
Just a precision: the observer on the plane would have to account for aberration to calculate our real position, because he would see us a bit ahead of where we would really be, so as you said, he would effectively have to point its laser a bit behind where he sees us to hit us. Incidentally, the same phenomenon would occur between the two planes: because of aberration, an observer on one of the planes would see the other plane where it actually is, so if he would aim its laser directly at it, he would miss it. 

Quote from: Andrex
Quote
It is so for sound because sound waves go straight line in air after having been emitted, so light waves should behave the same in aether if it exists.
If you are moving in the same direction as the plane and at the same speed, you would (if you could somehow eliminate the racket from air rushing past your ears) hear the sound of the plane as coming from where you see the plane rather than from a long way behind it, even though the sound is coming to you from a long way behind where the plane now is.
Correct, and I add that it would be so because of aberration.

Quote
If a powered "bullet" (one that can maintain speed and direction without being slowed by drag) was sent out from the plane at the speed of sound perpendicular to the direction of travel of the plane while you are moving along parallel to the plane's path and level with it, you can hold a two-layer target for the bullet to pass through (perhaps with the layers several yards apart) - the bullet will make two holes through the target, and when you look through those holes, you will see the plane. It's difficult to set out a really good parallel scenario though as the space fabric doesn't replicate the drag aspect.
Your bullet would travel sideways through air because it would add the motion of the plane to its own motion, but sound doesn't, so the bullet wouldn't have to suffer aberration, and sound would. I think it is a coincidence that both would appear to come from the actual position of the plane, and I also think that light has probably something to do with the production of motion because of that coincidence, that light doesn't only wait to be observed. Here is the link to my theory's thread here, but you will have to copy/paste it since I guess I am not allowed to put links yet:
thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg467891#msg467891
Here is the link to the animation:
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif

Quote from: David
Quote
But this is not what the inertial frame principle means:  a moving inertial frame can be considered not to be moving, in such a way that light can be considered to travel sideways through space in the light clock mind experiment, so it manifestly doesn't fit with aether. With aether, a laser beam aimed at 90 degree between our two moving cars would miss us if we would travel fast enough or if we were far enough from one another.
No - it would not miss. If the cars are on parallel paths and level with each other, they could be a whole lightyear apart and the laser light sent out from a perpendicular (to the direction of travel of the cars) laser would still hit the other car, as would a bullet sent out from a gun set up with the same alignment as the laser, though the bullet would follow a much more deviated angle than the light and would hit the other car the best part of a million years later. If you think the light has to follow the perpendicular just because the laser is pointing along the perpendicular, you are breaking the laws of nature by changing the momentum of the system.
It's astounding to observe the small divergences people have on certain ideas. I hope you don't mind if I insist though, because I still see contradictions when I try to apply the reference frame principle to light.

With aether, we can see very well why light cannot add the direct speed of the source to its own speed like massive bodies do, but it is less clear that it cannot add the transverse speed of the source when its own speed is perpendicular to the motion for instance, and I personally think it is probably so because we are being diverted by the use of the reference frame principle to study the motion of light. Einstein himself admitted in his introduction to his paper on SR that his two postulates were contradictory, but he didn't elaborate on the subject. Light cannot be independent from the motion of the source when it moves in the direction of that motion, and follow it when it moves perpendicular to it, and that's what the inertial frame principle means. Two moving point sources moving side by side in aether would see the light they emitted towards their future position, not the one they emitted perpendicularly to their motion, and the laser in your MM simulation sends its light perpendicularly to its motion, not towards the future position of the mirror. If we replace the laser by a point source, the light emitted perpendicularly would not reach the mirror, and the one emitted at its future position would: two directions for light, two different paths in aether, but not in the space defined by the postulates of SR.

Quote from: David
Quote
I understand what you mean when you say that the speed of light would affect the forces though, but to me, with no doppler effect and no aberration to account for inside the same moving frame, whatever the speed of that frame, the light waves exchanged between two observers at rest inside the frame would always appear to carry the same energy and would always appear to come from the actual position of the source.
So why would you want to tinker with the alignment of the laser in my diagrams if you understand that?
Simply because I think light cannot travel this way, but I don't expect you to change your mind about that. In fact, I think our ideas are like bodies resisting to acceleration: ideas cannot change without resisting automatically to the change, thus subconsciously, no matter how intelligent we are. We will thus probably go on discussing until we get tired, or until one of us suffers an intuition, which I think are due to a random process similar to mutations happening only in human minds. Good luck to us if I am right! :0)

Quote from: David
Quote
Of course, the intensity of a wave lessens with distance, so the forces should lessen a bit for bodies moving through aether, but that effect has a lot less impact on energy than frequency, and frequency would not be affected.  (http://"https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg446148#msg446148")
Just as light is focused forwards more strongly and cancels out the difference, so must force be if the square room round a bulb is to retain the right shape for the walls to remain evenly lit. The MMX suggests that matter length-contracts in a manner consistent with forces and light behaving the same way in that regard.
With aether, wether the room is contracted or not, it seems to me that the light would travel less distance to reach the approaching wall than the one that is getting away from it, and if it is so, the approaching wall should absorb a more intense light than the other. Would it?

Quote
but the light intensity should adjust automatically for the speed of the system through means of the headlights effect, so there shouldn't be any apparent change to account for.
The headlight effect is due to aberration, and if the source is not moving with regard to the room, precisely because of aberration, that source would always appear to be at its actual position for any observer in the room, so I don't see how any of them could observe that effect. In this citation from wiki, relativistic beaming is called doppler beaming, and there is no doppler effect to observe in your moving room example.

«Relativistically moving objects are beamed due to a variety of physical effects. Light aberration causes most of the photons to be emitted along the object's direction of motion. The Doppler effect changes the energy of the photons by red- or blue-shifting them. Finally, time intervals as measured by clocks moving alongside the emitting object are different from those measured by an observer on Earth due to time dilation and photon arrival time effects. How all of these effects modify the brightness, or apparent luminosity, of a moving object is determined by the equation describing the relativistic Doppler effect (which is why relativistic beaming is also known as Doppler beaming).»
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_beaming)

Wiki says that aberration causes the photons to be emitted in the direction of motion, but they say that to conform to the relativistic definition of aberration, which comes from the idea that we cannot differentiate if it is the source or the observer that is moving. With aether we can, and we thus can see that only the photons that would have been sent towards the future position of the observer would hit him. With aether, there is no aberration either at the observer if he is at rest in aether while the source is moving, whereas there is with SR.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 26/05/2017 22:29:11
David,



Quote
Its unlikely that you can carry the Aether inside of a spaceship. So two pilots can go fast enough in space not to be able to view the other right next to you.

That never happens - they always see each as other side by side.

Quote
If you looked forward in the spaceship the front of you would appear to go from 7.46 meters to 0.53 meters. Not because the distance changed physically but because light only took that distance to reach you. Your view would be magnified also because of the inverse square law would change your viewing distance.

That is nonsense - we would be able to detect that kind of visual change easily in the lab even at the relatively low speed the Earth goes round the sun, but no such visual warping occurs. Your problem is that you have come up with a wonderful theory of your own and you're determined to try to make nature conform to it rather than allowing nature to dictate the form of your theory. You are going against what nature does.

If an image (light) only goes 0.53 back relative to 7.46 in distance looking behind you, somehow you believe the one way distance for light is the same as the two way distance for a light image. Now that would be magic.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 23:18:04
Incidentally, the same phenomenon would occur between the two planes: because of aberration, an observer on one of the planes would see the other plane where it actually is, so if he would aim its laser directly at it, he would miss it.

No amount of repeating that can make it true. You are changing the momentum of the system. You are also making it impossible for a perpendicular laser to function if it's moving along at high speed because the light wouldn't be allowed to travel through it without hitting the side. Quite apart from anything else, lasers send light back and forth internally for a long time before releasing it, and as that light bounces back and forth it's following a zigzag path through space. When it's finally released, it isn't suddenly going to change path to follow the real perpendicular.

Quote from: Anthrax
Your bullet would travel sideways through air because it would add the motion of the plane to its own motion, but sound doesn't, so the bullet wouldn't have to suffer aberration, and sound would.

The sound front would be angled, but it would still hit the hearer perpendicular in the frame in which the planes are at rest, so it is just like the bullet in that regard.

Quote
thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg467891#msg467891

I'll look at it after I've posted this.

Quote
Here is the link to the animation: ...

I gave up waiting for the adverts to disappear and for the actual gif to show any sign of existing.

Quote
It's astounding to observe the small divergences people have on certain ideas. I hope you don't mind if I insist though, because I still see contradictions when I try to apply the reference frame principle to light.

As it stands, your interpretation of things would allow you to use a ring of lasers aligned perpendicular to a rocket, all pointing out sideways in many different directions (so that they cancel each other out in terms of sideways force) to accelerate that rocket. You'd have to give it a push start to get it going though.

Quote
...and the laser in your MM simulation sends its light perpendicularly to its motion, not towards the future position of the mirror. If we replace the laser by a point source, the light emitted perpendicularly would not reach the mirror, and the one emitted at its future position would: two directions for light, two different paths in aether, but not in the space defined by the postulates of SR.

Watch the light in the laser in my MMX diagrams and see which path it follows across the screen while it is moving along inside the laser - it is not moving along the perpendicular. Why then should it suddenly change direction when it leaves the laser? If you replace the laser with a point source, which will behave like a normal light bulb, you'll find that conservation of momentum throws more of the light forward. Some light leaves on the true perpendicular, but it is light which to the moving system is regarded as being sent out behind and not directly to the side.

Quote
Simply because I think light cannot travel this way, but I don't expect you to change your mind about that. In fact, I think our ideas are like bodies resisting to acceleration: ideas cannot change without resisting automatically to the change, thus subconsciously, no matter how intelligent we are. We will thus probably go on discussing until we get tired, or until one of us suffers an intuition, which I think are due to a random process similar to mutations happening only in human minds. Good luck to us if I am right! :0)

I always question my own beliefs and try to test them to destruction. If everyone else did that, there would be a lot less disagreement. It is the case though that most ideas are driven by momentum with established beliefs carrying on no matter how irrational they are, which is why most children are still having the bulk of their childhood wasted on fake education while they actually learn no faster than unschooled children who are allowed to play all day instead, but the statistics that show them gaining the same quantity and quality of qualifications by the end of the process is steadfastly ignored. It's the same with every area in politics with everyone flogging the same old failed policies for many decades instead of adapting them to fit the real world. It's just something humans generally do. But in this particular case, you're ignoring conservation of momentum.

Quote
With aether, whether the room is contracted or not, it seems to me that the light would travel less distance to reach the approaching wall than the one that is getting away from it, and if it is so, the approaching wall should absorb a more intense light than the other. Would it?

No, because the light send out backwards is weaker, having a longer wavelength, but when the wall hits it it runs into it fast enough to boost the perceived power back up to what it would be if the room was at rest. Likewise, the light going forward has a very high frequency, but when it hits the wall that's moving away from it, its power is not felt to be higher at all.

Quote
The headlight effect is due to aberration, and if the source is not moving with regard to the room, precisely because of aberration, that source would always appear to be at its actual position for any observer in the room, so I don't see how any of them could observe that effect. In this citation from wiki, relativistic beaming is called doppler beaming, and there is no doppler effect to observe in your moving room example.

The headlights effect is caused by conservation of momentum and it is not visible to people in the moving room with the light bulb. If light behaved the way you want it to, the rear wall would become brighter and the leading wall dimmer, so the people in the room could measure the room's speed of travel through space with a lightmeter. The Doppler effect aspect of this is also hidden from them, but an observer at rest who sees some of the light escaping through holes in the wall will see considerable shifts in its frequency.

Quote
Wiki says that aberration causes the photons to be emitted in the direction of motion, but they say that to conform to the relativistic definition of aberration, which comes from the idea that we cannot differentiate if it is the source or the observer that is moving. With aether we can, and we thus can see that only the photons that would have been sent towards the future position of the observer would hit him. With aether, there is no aberration either at the observer if he is at rest in aether while the source is moving, whereas there is with SR.

You're making up rules for aether (or a fabric of space) which don't apply to it any more than they apply to the Spacetime aether (or fabric). Any mechanism that throws a photon out eastwards from a stationary source would, if the source was moving north at any speed, automatically send that photon out some way to the north of eastwards such that it keeps pace northwards with the source and maintains the momentum of the system.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 26/05/2017 23:29:12
If an image (light) only goes 0.53 back relative to 7.46 in distance looking behind you, somehow you believe the one way distance for light is the same as the two way distance for a light image. Now that would be magic.

If you want to project an image, you'll find that forward movement at 0.866c of the projector turns a forward-pointing lens into a stronger telephoto which means that even though the image has to go nearly seven and a half times as far to hit the screen it will display the image the same size as it would with the system at rest. Turn the projector round to point at the rear screen instead and the lens serves as a wide angle lens, again automatically correcting the size of the image. You can test that by working out where the lens is when the light catches it and drawing straight lines from the corners of the original image in the projector through the centre of the lens and on to where the screen will be when the light catches up with that, at which point you'll find the image size to be unchanged (even if you forget to deal with length contraction) - all speeds of travel of the system lead to the same size of image on the screen. Everything conspires to hide the real speed of travel of the system from all observers, and that's what makes the maths of relativity so fascinating.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 00:07:22
thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.msg467891#msg467891

I'm not sure exactly what the theory is, but if you accelerate a molecule by hitting just one of its atoms, you may well get a chain reaction with different atoms in the molecule taking turns to move and passing kinetic energy about between them. Over time, the movement of the atoms may settle down and become more constant joint movement of all the atoms, which means not all of the extra energy can have been passed on from one to the next each time. If there are only two atoms, the molecule would most likely just spin and keep spinning at a constant rate, but a more complex molecule could deform repeatedly as different atoms move more than others, and that might make it possible for some energy to be radiated off as infra-red light instead of being retained as extra kinetic energy in the molecule. Whatever the case though, I can't see any great role for light in what's going on (other than that all matter is arguably made up of light because that's essentially what it decays into).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 27/05/2017 02:39:43
If an image (light) only goes 0.53 back relative to 7.46 in distance looking behind you, somehow you believe the one way distance for light is the same as the two way distance for a light image. Now that would be magic.

If you want to project an image, you'll find that forward movement at 0.866c of the projector turns a forward-pointing lens into a stronger telephoto which means that even though the image has to go nearly seven and a half times as far to hit the screen it will display the image the same size as it would with the system at rest. Turn the projector round to point at the rear screen instead and the lens serves as a wide angle lens, again automatically correcting the size of the image. You can test that by working out where the lens is when the light catches it and drawing straight lines from the corners of the original image in the projector through the centre of the lens and on to where the screen will be when the light catches up with that, at which point you'll find the image size to be unchanged (even if you forget to deal with length contraction) - all speeds of travel of the system lead to the same size of image on the screen. Everything conspires to hide the real speed of travel of the system from all observers, and that's what makes the maths of relativity so fascinating.

We are discussing 3d shapes not a projected image. If the physical shape was one cell length in the front and the same physical object in the back one cell length there would be a different view of length with the observer in the middle when at relative rest. The physical object in back would appear to be 7.461 cell lengths long because the front of the image reaches you and the rear of the image takes 7.461 cell lengths to reach you with the constant speed of a ship at 0.866 c. Now the front image would reach you and the back of the physical object takes 0.53 cell lengths so it appears compressed length wise. Physically they are the same size at relative rest. These are your numbers we agreed on for travel distances for light. Light coming towards you from the back would reflect the image for 7.461 cell lengths for depth of view. From the front only 0.53 cell lengths are reflected.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 27/05/2017 14:00:36
Lets look at it another way. We have a ship in space 10 meters long with a reflective mirror in the front and back to reflect on both sides. This ship is going 0.866 c. There is a bulb in space stationary to the ship. The ship approaches the bulb. Light reaches the front mirror and bounces back to the observer at relative rest with the bulb. The ship moves forward ~4.6 meters and reflects light off of the back mirror. The returned length of light with just one photon would measure the ship as ~5.3 meters long.

Now the ship moving away from the bulb at rest compared to 0.866c. The light reaches the back mirror and co-moves forward with the ship. Light gains 0.133 for every length of the ship. So the light reaches the front mirror in 74.6 meters compared to the observer at rest. So the observer at rest would measure the ship moving away as ~74.6 meters long.

Now what would be the perpendicular view by the observer at rest?
For that we can use the Lorentz contraction and get 0.5 relative to rest. So the view is the hypotenuse between the two legs of a created right triangle for how light actually moves through space shortens the view by Half. We can never view true perpendicular only the angle from behind our position if we are the one in motion or forward of our position if we are at rest. Its the same view from either position.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 27/05/2017 15:52:29
Incidentally, the same phenomenon would occur between the two planes: because of aberration, an observer on one of the planes would see the other plane where it actually is, so if he would aim its laser directly at it, he would miss it.
No amount of repeating that can make it true. You are changing the momentum of the system.
I admit I didn't apply the conservation law yet to that idea, only logic and diagrams, so I'll try.

Quote
You are also making it impossible for a perpendicular laser to function if it's moving along at high speed because the light wouldn't be allowed to travel through it without hitting the side.
That's exactly what should happen to your perpendicular laser, only the light emitted by the atoms towards the future position of the mirrors should hit them, so contrary to what I thought, you seem to be right about its angle. :0) I already knew that light could not suffer aberration at reflection if a light clock was to work, so I could more readily apply it to the laser, and it will also help me to understand how light behaves between my two atoms. I guess our divergence was only a misunderstanding of mine then! Does that solve my momentum problem? Maybe you could add this specific explanation on what is happening into your laser to your MM page so that people like me would understand faster.

Quote
Quote from: Le Repteux
Your bullet would travel sideways through air because it would add the motion of the plane to its own motion, but sound doesn't, so the bullet wouldn't have to suffer aberration, and sound would.
The sound front would be angled, but it would still hit the hearer perpendicular in the frame in which the planes are at rest, so it is just like the bullet in that regard.
No need for rest frames with aether, we clearly see why it is so, but what a coincidence that light appears to follow the motion of bodies while it has no mass!

Quote from: David
Quote
Here is the link to the animation: ...
I gave up waiting for the adverts to disappear and for the actual gif to show any sign of existing.
Sorry! I have Adblock so I didn't know about the adverts. I tried to attach it but it doesn't work either. I guess we will have to wait for my fiftieth message then.

Quote from: David
Quote
With aether, whether the room is contracted or not, it seems to me that the light would travel less distance to reach the approaching wall than the one that is getting away from it, and if it is so, the approaching wall should absorb a more intense light than the other. Would it?
No, because the light send out backwards is weaker, having a longer wavelength, but when the wall hits it it runs into it fast enough to boost the perceived power back up to what it would be if the room was at rest. Likewise, the light going forward has a very high frequency, but when it hits the wall that's moving away from it, its power is not felt to be higher at all.
I was talking about the intensity of light, not its frequency. But you seem to mean that doppler effect would also take care of the intensity, so I'll try to figure out how.

Quote
The headlights effect is caused by conservation of momentum and it is not visible to people in the moving room with the light bulb. If light behaved the way you want it to, the rear wall would become brighter and the leading wall dimmer, so the people in the room could measure the room's speed of travel through space with a lightmeter. The Doppler effect aspect of this is also hidden from them, but an observer at rest who sees some of the light escaping through holes in the wall will see considerable shifts in its frequency.
The law of conservation of momentum is not a mechanism, and the way waves travel in a medium is, so if a wall is approaching the light source and the other is fleeing away, the approaching wall should still receive more light. Do you have a mechanism to provide or just a law?

Quote
Any mechanism that throws a photon out eastwards from a stationary source would, if the source was moving north at any speed, automatically send that photon out some way to the north of eastwards such that it keeps pace northwards with the source and maintains the momentum of the system.
If I understand well, the internal mechanism that produces photons would be influenced by the motion of atoms through aether, and the mechanism that produces water waves would not. Is that it?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 27/05/2017 16:46:00
Light waves are probably tornado and cyclone for entangled pairs. A trick used by light to make us consider super luminal speeds as possible. But the real speed limit is c. Spring type waves rather than pebble and water.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 18:40:26
We are discussing 3d shapes not a projected image.

Best not to use the word "image" then if you aren't talking about an image.

Quote
If the physical shape was one cell length in the front and the same physical object in the back one cell length there would be a different view of length with the observer in the middle when at relative rest. The physical object in back would appear to be 7.461 cell lengths long because the front of the image reaches you and the rear of the image takes 7.461 cell lengths to reach you with the constant speed of a ship at 0.866 c. Now the front image would reach you and the back of the physical object takes 0.53 cell lengths so it appears compressed length wise. Physically they are the same size at relative rest. These are your numbers we agreed on for travel distances for light. Light coming towards you from the back would reflect the image for 7.461 cell lengths for depth of view. From the front only 0.53 cell lengths are reflected.

No matter what speed the system's moving at, there will be no such visual distortions - it will always look as if there is no greater delay one way than the other and the difference in the distance light has to travel has no impact on how either end is seen from the other. The way a projector and lens works should act as a clue to that. The eye works exactly the same way - if you're looking forward, the lens acts more like a wide-angle lens (because the distance light has to travel from lens to retina is reduced) and if you're looking backward it acts like a telephoto (because the distance light has to travel from lens to retina is increased). The same thing happens with mirrors. If you have a light bulb in the middle of a moving room and you put a mirror to one side of it to reflect some of the light (that was going sideways) forwards, the curved wave front hits a moving mirror and makes the mirror interact with it as if the mirror was curved (concave), thereby projecting the light forwards in a less spread out form. If the same mirror's used to bounce the light to the rear instead, it acts as if it's curved the other way (convex), leading to the light spreading out more after it's been reflected. Everything automatically adjusts to hide the movement of the system through space from anyone co-moving with it.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 27/05/2017 18:55:34
Ok, before I start , you do realise that if the train travels down a  slope it makes it easier to measure the light?

No, I don't realise that, and your numbers don't appear to realise it either.

Now I have given the answer to the angle I provided without knowing the speed of the carriage, however I am sure with it being maths, I can get the results to fit a speed of the carriage.

How can you possibly calculate the angle without involving the speed of the carriage in the calculation?

Quote
However before we move on from the last assignment , you still avoided my question, I am still waiting for the proof of the physical contraction you claim exists.  I have not observed anything of the wow factor thus far, this is pretty basic stuff.

I've answered that many times before, but you clearly weren't ready to take it in. Remember the five points that I made in post #134:-

(A) A moving clock records fewer ticks than a stationary one in a given length of time, so it is not recording time, but is merely counting cycles. That is what all clocks do.

(B) A light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of movement therefore records fewer ticks than a stationary clock.

(C) An uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel (rather than perpendicular to it) will record fewer ticks than a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(D) A correctly length-contracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel will record the same number of ticks as a light clock co-moving with it which is aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel.

(E) The null result of the MMX shows that the real universe length-contracts things in their direction of travel.

Once you have generated the right numbers for assignment 2, you'll be able to compare the two moving light clocks and see that the perpendicular one ticks more often than the other. The MMX shows that this is not how the universe works because real light clocks which move along together always tick at the same rate as each other regardless of their alignment. We also know that the slowing of real clocks matches up to the perpendicular clock's predicted behaviour and not to the predicted behaviour of uncontracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel.

Quote
p.s the answer to assignment 2 is a variate relative to the dimensions of the carriage.

Your perpendicular light clock should be the same length as the one used in assignment 1 so that you can easily compare the numbers you get from the two assignments. Your job here is to work out how far the train moves at 0.5c while the light travels from mirror A to the far mirror (B') and back to the first one again (A"), and you need to know how to calculate the angle that the light moves away from the perpendicular. I told you how the angle can be calculated and I was hoping that you'd let me know whether you understand that method or not. If you want to find your own method for doing it, that's fine, but for it to be valid it will need to generate the same numbers. We will be stuck here until you understand the method I've spelt out to you, so I'll go through it again with a new diagram.

We want to calculate the angle x. We have a right angled triangle, but the only side of that triangle with a known length is the vertical line B'A' which has a length of d [= 299,792,458m]. However, we do know the ratio of the lengths of AA' to AB' because we know the ratio of the speed of the train to the speed of light, and that ratio is 0.5:1.

The trig rule soh tells us that sine(x) = AA'/AB'. We don't yet know the lengths AA' or AB', but we do know their ratio, so we can simply use the numbers from that ratio: sine(x) = 0.5/1. Because we're dividing a number by 1, the result will be unchanged, so we now have sine(x) = 0.5. All we need to do now is use a calculator to find x by typing in a sequence such as 0.5 inv sin or shift sin 0.5 (depending on the order the calculator wants you to press the keys in.

Having done that and got the number 30 degrees from the calculator, we can now set about working out the actual lengths of the lines AA' and AB'. The only real length we know for the triangle is the vertical line A'B', but that's enough to do the rest now as we also have an angle to work with. All we need to do is apply more trig: tan(x) = AA'/A'B', and cosine(x) =  A'B'/AB'. We can rearrange those a little before we pick up the calculator (and note that I'm going to use an asterisk for the multiplication symbol to avoid confusion with the angle x): AA' =  tan(x) * A'B', and AB' = A'B'/cos(x). Now the calculator is used: AA' = 0.57735, and AB' = 1.1547. Note that I have used 1 as the length of A'B' because my length unit is d, and d = 299,792,458m. To fit with all your previous calculations, you should use 299792458 instead of 1 so that your answers come out in metres.

If you double 0.57735, you'll get 1.1547, so these answers fit with the 0.5:1 ratio that we expect them to. The lower mirror has moved from A to A" by the time the light returns to it from the top mirror, so the train has moved 1.1547d and the light has moved 2.3094d. To convert those to metres, again you'd need to multiply them by 299792458. One tick of this moving clock will take 2.3094t, and as my time unit is a second long, that's 2.3094s.

We now have three tick rates. The stationary clock ticks once every 2 seconds. The moving clock from assignment 1 ticks once for every 2 2/3 seconds of the stationary clock. The moving clock from assignment 2 ticks once for every 2.3094 seconds of the stationary clock.

Now, lets see how many pages of posts it takes you to get up to speed with that. On the up side though, it looks as if you might reach the finish line before GoC, which no one reading this thread at the start would ever have predicted.

I already understand what you are on about in intricate detail, I might not know the calculations but it is not as if I can't do them as proved in your first assignment.   However as the first assignment the second assignment is a rather ''pointless'' exercise...the biggest flaw being that light doe's not behave this way, especially in the zig zag scenario, quite provable by experiment.

Are you objective enough to realise why Einstein was wrong?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 27/05/2017 19:06:55

* laser.jpg (11.16 kB . 421x458 - viewed 1821 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 19:08:34
Lets look at it another way. We have a ship in space 10 meters long with a reflective mirror in the front and back to reflect on both sides. This ship is going 0.866 c. There is a bulb in space stationary to the ship. The ship approaches the bulb. Light reaches the front mirror and bounces back to the observer at relative rest with the bulb. The ship moves forward ~4.6 meters and reflects light off of the back mirror. The returned length of light with just one photon would measure the ship as ~5.3 meters long.

Is the bulb just putting out a single flash of light? If so, the observer with the flashbulb would see two flashes come back with a time gap between them of 2 times ~5.3 units of time (with one time unit being the time light takes to travel one metre). However, if your 10m length is the rest length, the actual length is 5m, so the time gap will only be ~5.3 units of time.

Quote
Now the ship moving away from the bulb at rest compared to 0.866c. The light reaches the back mirror and co-moves forward with the ship. Light gains 0.133 for every length of the ship. So the light reaches the front mirror in 74.6 meters compared to the observer at rest. So the observer at rest would measure the ship moving away as ~74.6 meters long.

Again it would be double that unless you apply length contraction.

Quote
Now what would be the perpendicular view by the observer at rest?

The observer at rest will see the ship appear to be highly contracted as it approaches and highly extended as it moves away. These contractions and extensions are not the length-contraction of relativity though and should never be confused with it. What the stationary observer should do is work out what the delays should be for the speed the ship is moving at and then correct for them to measure the correct length, at which point he will produce the answer that the ship is 5m long (assuming that it is 10m long when at rest).

Importantly though, if you give your stationary observer an identical 10m ship and have the original one send out flashes too, the observer on the moving ship will get the exact same timing delays between the returned flashes, and if he takes his own ship to be the one that's stationary, he will determine that the other ship must be 5m long.

Quote
For that we can use the Lorentz contraction and get 0.5 relative to rest. So the view is the hypotenuse between the two legs of a created right triangle for how light actually moves through space shortens the view by Half.

You're barking up the wrong tree when you drag the hypotenuse into this - if we use glass rather than mirrors, all the light involved in the experiment can be moving on a single straight line, just as if we're using a one-dimensional universe. There is no hypotenuse. Light does not travel on the hypotenuse when it goes fore and aft.

Quote
We can never view true perpendicular only the angle from behind our position if we are the one in motion or forward of our position if we are at rest. Its the same view from either position.

If you want to see the length contraction, you have to look from the side rather than from ahead or behind. If you view from ahead or behind, you see apparent contraction or extension due to communication delays which have nothing whatsoever to do with relativity's length-contraction. The observer must calculate the length by allowing for the expected visual distortions caused by relative movement. (A co-moving observer does not see any such distortions though and cannot detect the length-contraction at all, so it's vital that you don't mix up the two cases and try to have visual distortions in cases where they do not apply.)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 20:59:26
...but what a coincidence that light appears to follow the motion of bodies while it has no mass!

When it hits something and is absorbed, it adds to the mass of the object that absorbed it. Also, the entire object can decay and turn into massless electro-magnetic radiation, but conservation of momentum still applies to all that radiation and determines how the energy is spread.

Quote
I was talking about the intensity of light, not its frequency. But you seem to mean that doppler effect would also take care of the intensity, so I'll try to figure out how.

With light, the frequency is the intensity (unless you change the number of photons involved).

Quote
The law of conservation of momentum is not a mechanism,

Maybe so, but whatever the mechanism is, it must fit with the conservation of momentum. If you are on a moving boat and you punch the water beside it (downwards), what will be the shape of the wave produced? How much energy will be put into the forward-moving part of the wave and how much into the part moving astern? The mechanism for producing light waves will likely be similar to that (though there's a complication when we think of the wave as a collection of photons).

Quote
and the way waves travel in a medium is, so if a wall is approaching the light source and the other is fleeing away, the approaching wall should still receive more light. Do you have a mechanism to provide or just a law?

What I just described with punching water shows why more of the light will be thrown forwards and less backwards. (The analogy is not perfect though if you're in a boat that's moving faster than the speed of the waves produced by the punch, and waves on water also move at different speeds depending on their size.)

Quote
If I understand well, the internal mechanism that produces photons would be influenced by the motion of atoms through aether, and the mechanism that produces water waves would not. Is that it?

I don't see any great difference in principle. If you're on a stationary boat which is pointing east and you stick your hand in the water to push it out away from you, a wave will move off northwards (perpendicular to the boat). If you repeat this from a moving boat though with the boat still pointing east, your hand doesn't move directly northwards this time, but perhaps north east, even though you're still moving it perpendicular to the boat.

Let's do the same thing again using a long straight board to push the water so that we have a more singularly directed wave. We can have two people push the board, one holding each end, and they'll push when they're told to do so by clocks at their end of the board which are synchronised using signals that travel at the same speed as the water waves. When the boat is stationary, the whole board is pushed out sideways with both ends being moved simultaneously. When the boat's moving though, the clocks re-synchronise themselves for the new speed of movement (which is something they will do repeatedly as standard), and what happens this time is that the further aft end of the board gets pushed out first, followed later by the further forward one. This means that not only is the board not moving directly north when the boat's moving, but it's angled differently too, giving a stronger push than if the two ends moved simultaneously.

We don't know, or at least I don't, how electrons move around atoms, but we do know that they are responsible for emitting photons. If an electron is moving when it emits a photon, that will doubtless have some influence over which way the photon goes. The frequency of the light and its wave nature also suggests that something is oscillating while it's being produced, with faster oscillation leading to a shorter wavelength and more energy being carried by the photon, although it may well be more complicated that that, but nothing about it suggests that there should be any special mechanism involved that goes against all the ones we understand by detecting its movement through the medium in order to remove that motion or directionality from the thing that's being sent out.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 21:23:20
I already understand what you are on about in intricate detail, I might not know the calculations but it is not as if I can't do them as proved in your first assignment.   However as the first assignment the second assignment is a rather ''pointless'' exercise...the biggest flaw being that light doe's not behave this way, especially in the zig zag scenario, quite provable by experiment.

What's pointless about it? It predicts that a moving light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel should behave in a way that fits with the results of experiments with it's ticking rate reduced to the right degree. (Your position on this was that such a moving clock would tick at the same rate as a stationary one, and that doesn't fit with the results of experiment.) It also predicts that an uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel would tick slower than the perpendicular one, but experiment has not found any uncontracted light clocks aligned with their direction of travel - what experiments show is that real light clocks are contracted when aligned that way.

Quote
Are you objective enough to realise why Einstein was wrong?

I realise what Einstein was right and wrong about. I don't think you do though.

And what's your latest diagram (post #178) supposed to show?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 27/05/2017 21:56:10
What's pointless about it? It predicts that a moving light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel should behave in a way that fits with the results of experiments with it's ticking rate reduced to the right degree. (Your position on this was that such a moving clock would tick at the same rate as a stationary one, and that doesn't fit with the results of experiment.)

Quite to the contrary, I predicted the clocks would ''tick'' at the same rates and they do as shown over several diagrams I have provided.  It is your understanding that is a failure.
I understand your error and have already explained it once in which you ignored.  I will continue with your misunderstanding and do the calculation when you have objectively understood this error.

The clock at rest measures 1.s whilst the light clock in motion as not yet measured 1.s.  When the light clock in motion measures 1 second, the clock at relative rest measures 1.3s.

How much time as passed by?

t1(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

t2(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

Showing how wrong you are.
* tt.jpg (10.35 kB . 421x458 - viewed 1794 times)

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

added- To put it simple for you, ''you'' are measuring the time by using light but measuring the light in the incorrect geometrical point giving you a false result.





Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 27/05/2017 23:10:51
Quite to the contrary, I predicted the clocks would ''tick'' at the same rates and they do as shown over several diagrams I have provided.

Let me remind you. We have three tick rates. The stationary clock ticks once every 2 seconds. The moving clock from assignment 1 ticks once for every 2 2/3 seconds of the stationary clock. The moving clock from assignment 2 ticks once for every 2.3094 seconds of the stationary clock.

If you want to, you can built a clock to half the length so that it ticks once per second when stationary, and once every 1.1547 seconds when moving at 0.5c (or once every 1 1/3 seconds if uncontracted and aligned with the direction of travel rather that perpendicular to it), so those are the correct figures.

Quote
It is your understanding that is a failure.

What? My understanding fails because it fits the facts while yours doesn't?

Quote
I understand your error and have already explained it once in which you ignored.

You don't appear to understand anything, even after you've been dragged through the whole thing.

Quote
I will continue with your misunderstanding and do the calculation when you have objectively understood this error.

It won't do you any good if I move away from reason to believe something that doesn't fit the facts just so that I can be as wrong as you. You're the one that needs to shift.

Quote
The clock at rest measures 1.s whilst the light clock in motion as not yet measured 1.s.  When the light clock in motion measures 1 second, the clock at relative rest measures 1.3s.

Where do you get this 1.3 from? It should either be 1.1547 (the figure experiments give us) or 1 1/3 (which nature never gives us because of length-contraction).

Quote
]How much time as passed by?

t1(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

t2(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

Showing how wrong you are.[attachment id=0 msg=515314]

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

The pigeon is defecating on the chess board again and thinks it's won.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 27/05/2017 23:19:14
Quite to the contrary, I predicted the clocks would ''tick'' at the same rates and they do as shown over several diagrams I have provided.

Let me remind you. We have three tick rates. The stationary clock ticks once every 2 seconds. The moving clock from assignment 1 ticks once for every 2 2/3 seconds of the stationary clock. The moving clock from assignment 2 ticks once for every 2.3094 seconds of the stationary clock.

If you want to, you can built a clock to half the length so that it ticks once per second when stationary, and once every 1.1547 seconds when moving at 0.5c (or once every 1 1/3 seconds if uncontracted and aligned with the direction of travel rather that perpendicular to it), so those are the correct figures.

Quote
It is your understanding that is a failure.

What? My understanding fails because it fits the facts while yours doesn't?

Quote
I understand your error and have already explained it once in which you ignored.

You don't appear to understand anything, even after you've been dragged through the whole thing.

Quote
I will continue with your misunderstanding and do the calculation when you have objectively understood this error.

It won't do you any good if I move away from reason to believe something that doesn't fit the facts just so that I can be as wrong as you. You're the one that needs to shift.

Quote
The clock at rest measures 1.s whilst the light clock in motion as not yet measured 1.s.  When the light clock in motion measures 1 second, the clock at relative rest measures 1.3s.

Where do you get this 1.3 from? It should either be 1.1547 (the figure experiments give us) or 1 1/3 (which nature never gives us because of length-contraction).

How much time as passed by?

t1(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

t2(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

Showing how wrong you are.
* tt.jpg (10.35 kB . 421x458 - viewed 1794 times)

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

Quote
The pigeon is defecating on the chess board again and thinks it's won.

The pigeon is more like a lion that roars out the truth.   You quite clearly are not trying to understand. 

1.3 is an example, we do not have to use exact to show an example. But if you like I will use you time to show you again why you are wrong.

While  1.1547s has passed on the Earth clock only 1 second has passed on the dilated clock, however  1.1547s has passed by. The light in either clock has travelled  1.1547s worth of light distance.


added- To put it simple for you, ''you'' are measuring the time by using light but measuring the light in the incorrect geometrical point giving you a false result.

* d.jpg (8.53 kB . 421x458 - viewed 1731 times)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 27/05/2017 23:31:09
As yet you have offered nothing of a contraction or dilation, like I said earlier , all you are saying is light takes more time to travel more distance.
Yes you have to add contraction maths to retain synchronisation, however that's all it means and is nothing more than a mathematical correction to retain synchronous timing.  (take note time is always synchronous and passes by infinitely fast).

Δt=∞v

Where (t) is time and (v) is velocity

←v(t)=∞






Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 27/05/2017 23:55:53
Let us play a game, in the below diagram is a 0 which will vanish if the game is not worked out.

The game rules are simple , in 15 minutes of reading this post you lose if you have not worked out the game and froze time.   

In the below diagram you will observe a 0, once you have observed the 0 the timer activates and you are playing the game.

You now have 15 minutes to work out how to move the 0 without creating a past geometrical position, you can try to move the 0 at any speed you like.  However if you decide to do nothing, the 0 timer still ticks away creating a new chronological position in time at any speed you would like to define.

I assure you there is an answer to this, I wonder how many of you will admit it took you more than 15 minutes. (clue).
* 01.jpg (3.94 kB . 421x458 - viewed 1769 times)



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 28/05/2017 13:51:46
Let us play a game, in the below diagram is a 0 which will vanish if the game is not worked out.

The game rules are simple , in 15 minutes of reading this post you lose if you have not worked out the game and froze time.   

In the below diagram you will observe a 0, once you have observed the 0 the timer activates and you are playing the game.

You now have 15 minutes to work out how to move the 0 without creating a past geometrical position, you can try to move the 0 at any speed you like.  However if you decide to do nothing, the 0 timer still ticks away creating a new chronological position in time at any speed you would like to define.

I assure you there is an answer to this, I wonder how many of you will admit it took you more than 15 minutes. (clue).
* 01.jpg (3.94 kB . 421x458 - viewed 1769 times)




50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 28/05/2017 14:19:12
David

Here is your quote:
If you want to, you can built a clock to half the length so that it ticks once per second when stationary, and once every 1.1547 seconds when moving at 0.5c (or once every 1 1/3 seconds if uncontracted and aligned with the direction of travel rather that perpendicular to it), so those are the correct figures.

Do you understand where the contraction comes from in this case? The clock mirrors move through space 1/3 of the mirrors distance without the photon to reflect. Now since you are doing the two way you have to say only 0.1547 of the distance was without the photon. This is a visual contraction and a relative to space energy c for distance. The contraction is the amount of space not traveled by the photon. Your still in the rabbit hole believing the contraction is physical.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 28/05/2017 14:45:38
The contraction is the amount of space not traveled by the photon. Your still in the rabbit hole believing the contraction is physical.

Correct
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 28/05/2017 15:43:43
Let us play a game, in the below diagram is a 0 which will vanish if the game is not worked out.

The game rules are simple , in 15 minutes of reading this post you lose if you have not worked out the game and froze time.   

In the below diagram you will observe a 0, once you have observed the 0 the timer activates and you are playing the game.

You now have 15 minutes to work out how to move the 0 without creating a past geometrical position, you can try to move the 0 at any speed you like.  However if you decide to do nothing, the 0 timer still ticks away creating a new chronological position in time at any speed you would like to define.

I assure you there is an answer to this, I wonder how many of you will admit it took you more than 15 minutes. (clue).
* 01.jpg (3.94 kB . 421x458 - viewed 1769 times)




50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?

Anyone want the answer?  It looks like you are all struggling for the answer which is quite easy.

Clue 2 - I said you have to freeze time, I also give the option of the rate of time you wish to use, I also gave you 15 minutes.

Think about how long is 15 minutes if your rate  of time was infinitely slow.

Got it now?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 28/05/2017 15:50:24
David,

   The angle for light in the perpendicular position is 30 degrees from the direction of travel to meet the perpendicular clock. Light reaches the perpendicular clock in 1.1547 vs. 1 at relative rest. This is just basic 7th grade geometry using the Pythagoras theorem. We are measuring relative tick rates and do not require a physical contraction of length.

The sideways view created by vector velocity is also the contracted view. At half the speed of light the perpendicular view is from behind by 30 degrees which is a reduction of 13 4% of the actual size.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/05/2017 18:21:03
Quote from: David
I can't see any great role for light in what's going on (other than that all matter is arguably made up of light because that's essentially what it decays into)
Too bad you cant see the mechanism, but it's very simple: we walk like this when we walk sideways without crossing the legs, one foot approaching the other and stopping on the ground before it reaches it, the other foot getting away from the other and stopping on the ground too when it's long enough. What I figured is that if we would force such a system of particles to move, it would introduce doppler effect between the particles that would stay there as long as they would exchange light: blueshift from the approaching particle that would push the other away after a while, and redshift from the leaving one that would pull the other closer after a while. The steps between sources of light would then be the cause for motion, but there would also be resistance to acceleration, thus mass, since the first step caused by an external event would immediately produce doppler effect on the incoming light and would thus have to be introduced by force. With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass. It worked as long as I only considered doppler effect and aberration, but lately, I discovered that the step from the approaching particle couldn't have the same length than the one from the particle that was getting away since it should take less time for light to travel towards the closer particle than the inverse. I didn't get into the steps very deeply yet since this would need an interactive simulation that I'm unfortunately unable to make at the moment, but our discussion opened a new way for me to study the problem, and you can probably help because you're already used to play with that concept.

Let's imagine two particles one behind the other executing time shifted steps to the right, and let's assume that the steps from the left particle stop halfway from the second one before its light reaches that second one, which means that, from the viewpoint of that left particle, the right one is actually looking at rest at the distance it was when it emitted its light, and which also means that the mean speed of that left particle is half the speed of light. Notice though that the molecule as a whole has not traveled yet since only half of its particles have, so to complete the motion, the right particle has to make the same step the left one made. Once it would have, the molecule would have traveled one step while the light would have traveled back and forth between the particles, so that molecule would have only traveled at a c/4 while its atoms have to traveled at c/2, and this is without considering that a step is always going a lot faster at the middle of its course than at the ends. Notice that, if the frequency of the steps has to stay constant, and i think it has, then their length has to increase during an acceleration, which means that their middle speed could get to c way before their molecule would, what explains with a real mechanism at the micro scale the reason why the resistance to acceleration has to increase when speed gets close to c at our macro scale.

You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if  the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please? In other words, can you replace your two walls by my two particles, and your central bulb by considering the particles as sources of light. I tried but I still can't figure out how light could take the same time both ways, and I cant either compute what would happen after a while if we nevertheless ran a simulation with such a system: maybe it would self adjust after all, who knows? One more thing: in that model, the motion and mass of an isolated particle is justified by the much more frequent and smaller steps executed between its components.

ps. I think I found part of the answer below on my next message.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 18:31:25
How much time as passed by?

t1(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

t2(c)=1.3s d=399723277.333m

Showing how wrong you are.

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

Throwing a few wrong numbers at me and a pointless diagram won't get you anywhere, and the number 1.3s that you're using shows that your not using my measurement sytem - you're using your own one, and that's the one that's broken.

Quote
1.3 is an example, we do not have to use exact to show an example. But if you like I will use you time to show you again why you are wrong.

Just picking some random value to use as an example isn't an example of anything other than a random value, so how can it show anyone to be wrong? All it does is show that you can't even begin to construct an argument.

Quote
While  1.1547s has passed on the Earth clock only 1 second has passed on the dilated clock, however  1.1547s has passed by. The light in either clock has travelled  1.1547s worth of light distance.

That's better - that ties in with my position.

Quote
added- To put it simple for you, ''you'' are measuring the time by using light but measuring the light in the incorrect geometrical point giving you a false result.
[attachment id=0 msg=515324]

How am I wrong in what I say about what happens here when you're now agreeing with what I've said from the start? The stationary clock measures real time while the moving clock fails to measure so much time passing because of the increased distance light has to travel in it to complete each cycle.

As yet you have offered nothing of a contraction or dilation, like I said earlier , all you are saying is light takes more time to travel more distance.

You have just agreed that there's a dilation of time, although I personally don't like to call it that as it isn't time that's being affected in any way - it's simply clocks running slow and under-reading time as a result. The contraction only comes into it when looking at why co-moving light clocks aligned in different directions always stay in sync with each other instead of drifting out of sync in the way they would without length-contraction.

Quote
Yes you have to add contraction maths to retain synchronisation,

If you understand that, why did you say I've "offered nothing of a contraction"?

Quote
however that's all it means and is nothing more than a mathematical correction to retain synchronous timing.

If you don't accept that there's length-contraction, you remain at odds with the real universe and your theory no longer has any relevance. You can't handle relativistic mass being added to particles in particle accelerators and you can't handle the precision of their slowed rate of decay. It is nature that does length-contraction, and theories have to conform to that.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 18:43:34
50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?

97 views by the time I got to it, which is weird - all your images rack up lots of views quickly and often have dozens of views on them when they're newly posted. I assume that means you've posted them somewhere where lots of other people happen upon them, and it's sad to think how many man hours have been lost in this way when it's all added up.

I have no idea what your game is supposed to be about and no intention of wasting any time on it. The most obvious solution to the puzzle would be to block you as that would eliminate the entire past, present and future of the zero, the game, and the pigeon.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 18:54:07
Do you understand where the contraction comes from in this case? The clock mirrors move through space 1/3 of the mirrors distance without the photon to reflect.

Can you try to rephrase that in some way that might lead to it making a semblance of sense.

Quote
Now since you are doing the two way you have to say only 0.1547 of the distance was without the photon.

If your native language isn't English, please use your native language instead because it might be easier to make sense of. The mirror moved 1.1547 between the photon leaving it and returning to it while the photon went twice as far. How does that turn into 0.1547 of the distance "without the photon"?

Quote
This is a visual contraction and a relative to space energy c for distance. The contraction is the amount of space not traveled by the photon. Your still in the rabbit hole believing the contraction is physical.

The contraction is from 1.3333333333... to 1.1547 and that contraction is necessary to account for how the photon reaches the front mirror without going faster than c. You are just retreating into voodoo.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 19:06:27
The angle for light in the perpendicular position is 30 degrees from the direction of travel to meet the perpendicular clock. Light reaches the perpendicular clock in 1.1547 vs. 1 at relative rest. This is just basic 7th grade geometry using the Pythagoras theorem. We are measuring relative tick rates and do not require a physical contraction of length.

Of course you don't need a contraction of length for the perpendicular clock. How many times do you have to be told that? The contraction applies to the other clock aligned with its direction of travel such that the light has to chase a lead mirror which is racing away from it. No amount of telling me that the perpendicular clock doesn't need contraction will change the fact that the non-perpendicular clock needs contraction. Are you never going to take that on board?

Quote
The sideways view created by vector velocity is also the contracted view. At half the speed of light the perpendicular view is from behind by 30 degrees which is a reduction of 13 4% of the actual size.

The perpendicular view of the moving object remains the perpendicular view and is not changed by the speed of the object being viewed. The length contraction acting on the object will show up when looking in perpendicular to the path of the object. The 30 degree angle does represent the angle which an observer moving with the clock will think is perpendicular to its (and his) path, but that has no impact on the stationary observer. You are still severely muddled in your thinking, misapplying ideas which you only half understand.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/05/2017 19:16:00
Quote
I was talking about the intensity of light, not its frequency. But you seem to mean that doppler effect would also take care of the intensity, so I'll try to figure out how.
With light, the frequency is the intensity (unless you change the number of photons involved).
With photons, the intensity depends on the number of photons per square cm, so if the left wall hits the light sooner than the right one, there will automatically be more photons per square cm on that left wall.

Quote from: David
Quote
The law of conservation of momentum is not a mechanism,
Maybe so, but whatever the mechanism is, it must fit with the conservation of momentum. If you are on a moving boat and you punch the water beside it (downwards), what will be the shape of the wave produced? How much energy will be put into the forward-moving part of the wave and how much into the part moving astern? The mechanism for producing light waves will likely be similar to that (though there's a complication when we think of the wave as a collection of photons).
I guess that the bow wave will be higher than the stern one while their frequency will be the same.

Quote from: David
Quote
and the way waves travel in a medium is, so if a wall is approaching the light source and the other is fleeing away, the approaching wall should still receive more light. Do you have a mechanism to provide or just a law?
What I just described with punching water shows why more of the light will be thrown forwards and less backwards. (The analogy is not perfect though if you're in a boat that's moving faster than the speed of the waves produced by the punch, and waves on water also move at different speeds depending on their size.)
OK! I understand that the approaching wall would receive more photons per square cm, but that each of them would be less intense since they come from the stern part of the source. Is that what you meant? If so, I think we should be able to apply it to the steps, but I still have a problem to imagine how. A less intense photon should induce a less intense step, but I can't figure out what a less intense step would mean since all the steps have to travel the same distance. Maybe we should differentiate between the beginning and the end of the steps: maybe a step could be faster at the beginning and slower at the end, or slower at the beginning and faster at the end. I can't imagine further away than that for now though, I have to let it sink a bit.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 28/05/2017 20:31:07
50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?

97 views by the time I got to it, which is weird - all your images rack up lots of views quickly and often have dozens of views on them when they're newly posted. I assume that means you've posted them somewhere where lots of other people happen upon them, and it's sad to think how many man hours have been lost in this way when it's all added up.

I have no idea what your game is supposed to be about and no intention of wasting any time on it. The most obvious solution to the puzzle would be to block you as that would eliminate the entire past, present and future of the zero, the game, and the pigeon.

Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.
Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary. 

If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.

It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/05/2017 21:18:55
Quote from: The Box
It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.
Different ideas than ours automatically produce subconscious resistance to them, which transforms in bad feelings at the conscious level, which lead to bad interpretation of what is said, so we must take care not to take our feelings for granted when discussing ideas, but I admit I don't always do what I know I should in this case. :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 21:38:51
Too bad you cant see the mechanism, but it's very simple: we walk like this when we walk sideways without crossing the legs, one foot approaching the other and stopping on the ground before it reaches it, the other foot getting away from the other and stopping on the ground too when it's long enough.

That may well be how things really move if there's a minimum distance which can't be further subdivided. It would mean that everything moves in tiny jumps which would always occur at the same speed (possibly instantaneous), while what we normally think of as speed would then be how long things stay in one place between moves rather than how quickly they make the jumps.

Quote
What I figured is that if we would force such a system of particles to move, it would introduce doppler effect between the particles that would stay there as long as they would exchange light: blueshift from the approaching particle that would push the other away after a while, and redshift from the leaving one that would pull the other closer after a while. The steps between sources of light would then be the cause for motion, but there would also be resistance to acceleration, thus mass, since the first step caused by an external event would immediately produce doppler effect on the incoming light and would thus have to be introduced by force.

What do you mean by light? Are you perhaps thinking more in terms of force-carriers rather than light? If not, wouldn't your particles be giving out light all the time in all directions and losing most of it, thereby depleting themselves as they effectively decay into nothing more than radiation in a very short time?

Quote
With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass.

If there is a minimum separation distance in the space fabric and particles move in jumps between positions, they would need to be alternating between moving in jumps and being at rest, so that bit makes sense. There is also no movement energy in a stationary object, and hence no "light". If movement energy is the "light", then there would need to be more of it present the faster the object moves.

Quote
It worked as long as I only considered doppler effect and aberration, but lately, I discovered that the step from the approaching particle couldn't have the same length than the one from the particle that was getting away since it should take less time for light to travel towards the closer particle than the inverse. I didn't get into the steps very deeply yet since this would need an interactive simulation that I'm unfortunately unable to make at the moment, but our discussion opened a new way for me to study the problem, and you can probably help because you're already used to play with that concept.

The difference in the times taken shouldn't matter - your "light" can't be spreading out as it would be lost if it didn't hit the other particle every time, so it must get there sooner or later regardless. The thing that's bothering me most though is how the energy would be transferred between the two particles, because if the rear particle stops when it sends "light" forwards, the "light" can hit the front particle to set it moving, but then when the "light" leaves the front particle to go back to the rear one it will speed up the front particle when it sets out and will then accelerate the rear particle in the opposite direction when it gets there unless you have some way of giving the returning "light" negative energy. If such "light" with negative energy exists, then you could attract things towards you by shining it at them (which is quite different from normal light which would always push them away).

Quote
Let's imagine two particles one behind the other executing time shifted steps to the right, and let's assume that the steps from the left particle stop halfway from the second one before its light reaches that second one, which means that, from the viewpoint of that left particle, the right one is actually looking at rest at the distance it was when it emitted its light, and which also means that the mean speed of that left particle is half the speed of light. Notice though that the molecule as a whole has not traveled yet since only half of its particles have, so to complete the motion, the right particle has to make the same step the left one made. Once it would have, the molecule would have traveled one step while the light would have traveled back and forth between the particles, so that molecule would have only traveled at a c/4 while its atoms have to traveled at c/2, and this is without considering that a step is always going a lot faster at the middle of its course than at the ends. Notice that, if the frequency of the steps has to stay constant, and i think it has, then their length has to increase during an acceleration, which means that their middle speed could get to c way before their molecule would, what explains with a real mechanism at the micro scale the reason why the resistance to acceleration has to increase when speed gets close to c at our macro scale.

I'm getting a hint of an idea as to what you're hoping to achieve with this, but it seems to me that the frequency of the steps would need to increase for the object to move faster, because without that happening, it looks as if the maximum speed of the object would be limited to half c.

Quote
You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if  the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please?

Not the Doppler effect, but the headlights effect, but neither are terribly relevant because your "light" can't be allowed to miss the target, so you actually need a mechanism to ensure that it always goes to the right place and to ensure that force is then applied in the right direction.

Quote
In other words, can you replace your two walls by my two particles, and your central bulb by considering the particles as sources of light. I tried but I still can't figure out how light could take the same time both ways, and I cant either compute what would happen after a while if we nevertheless ran a simulation with such a system: maybe it would self adjust after all, who knows?

You don't have a bulb half way in between the particles radiating off energy, and your particles can't afford to miss any of the "light" either or energy would be lost from moving object all the time until it stops moving. I think you need to explore how much energy needs to be transferred, which direction it's being transferred in and which way it will move the thing that receives it. After that, you can try to work out how that energy is transferred, but I can't see it being done with anything that deserves to be described as light.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 21:56:44
]With photons, the intensity depends on the number of photons per square cm, so if the left wall hits the light sooner than the right one, there will automatically be more photons per square cm on that left wall.

No, all that happens is that the frequency changes such that each photon is more energetic. If you run into them fast enough they can become X-rays or gamma rays (although in the case of the room moving at ridiculously high speed, they would be released backward from the bulb as radio waves and then received by the wall as light).

Quote
I guess that the bow wave will be higher than the stern one while their frequency will be the same.

I'm not sure what would happen to the frequency as the wave height difference results in different speeds for the waves, but with light the speeds are always c and the frequency has to adjust instead. More of the energy is sent forwards than backwards too, but the same amount is sent out in opposite directions relative to the moving thing that introduced all the new energy there.

Quote
OK! I understand that the approaching wall would receive more photons per square cm, but that each of them would be less intense since they come from the stern part of the source. Is that what you meant?

The approaching wall receives the same amount of photons as if the room was stationary, and the same amount of photons as the front wall - they merely travel with lower energy by having a longer wavelength and lower frequency.

Quote
If so, I think we should be able to apply it to the steps, but I still have a problem to imagine how. A less intense photon should induce a less intense step, but I can't figure out what a less intense step would mean since all the steps have to travel the same distance. Maybe we should differentiate between the beginning and the end of the steps: maybe a step could be faster at the beginning and slower at the end, or slower at the beginning and faster at the end. I can't imagine further away than that for now though, I have to let it sink a bit.

Your first problem there is getting your "light" to transfer negative energy.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/05/2017 22:13:06
Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.

You have comprehensively lost the argument over and over again, but you are just like the pigeon - you don't understand all the stuff that goes right over your head, so you continue to strut about and coo. I very much doubt you've ever beaten anyone down in your life - they simply get bored with you when they realise you can't learn and they stop talking to you. The only reason I've put up with you longer than any of the others is that one of my main areas of study is moronics - I'm interested in how AGI is going to communicate with people who think like pigeons and the degree to which it may be able to help them make progress in improving their ability to think rationally.

Quote
Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary.

There comes a point beyond which there is nothing left to learn about a pigeon.

Quote
If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.

No I don't remember that - all I can remember is you denying that there is any contraction.

Quote
It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.

All the evidence to the contrary is written through the previous four pages of this thread for all to see.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 29/05/2017 23:20:58
Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.

You have comprehensively lost the argument over and over again, but you are just like the pigeon - you don't understand all the stuff that goes right over your head, so you continue to strut about and coo. I very much doubt you've ever beaten anyone down in your life - they simply get bored with you when they realise you can't learn and they stop talking to you. The only reason I've put up with you longer than any of the others is that one of my main areas of study is moronics - I'm interested in how AGI is going to communicate with people who think like pigeons and the degree to which it may be able to help them make progress in improving their ability to think rationally.

Quote
Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary.

There comes a point beyond which there is nothing left to learn about a pigeon.

Quote
If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.

No I don't remember that - all I can remember is you denying that there is any contraction.

Quote
It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.

All the evidence to the contrary is written through the previous four pages of this thread for all to see.
What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.   You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.
You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong. I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality. I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 30/05/2017 17:30:14
What do you mean by light? Are you perhaps thinking more in terms of force-carriers rather than light? If not, wouldn't your particles be giving out light all the time in all directions and losing most of it, thereby depleting themselves as they effectively decay into nothing more than radiation in a very short time?
I take light as an information carrier that helps bonded sources of light to stay synchronized. In my example with two sources aligned with the direction of motion, they use doppler effect to stay synchronized, but if they would rotate around one another or if they would not be aligned with the motion, they would also have to use aberration.

Quote
The thing that's bothering me most though is how the energy would be transferred between the two particles, because if the rear particle stops when it sends "light" forwards, the "light" can hit the front particle to set it moving, but then when the "light" leaves the front particle to go back to the rear one it will speed up the front particle when it sets out and will then accelerate the rear particle in the opposite direction when it gets there unless you have some way of giving the returning "light" negative energy. If such "light" with negative energy exists, then you could attract things towards you by shining it at them (which is quite different from normal light which would always push them away).
The energy comes from doppler effect: for two bonded particles, the bonding energy observed by the particles has to stay constant, so if we force one of them to move while it takes time for that information to reach the other one, it produces blueshift on the bonding energy emitted towards the other particle, which moves away from it to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, which produces redshift on the bonding energy emitted backwards to the other particle, which moves towards it after a while to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, ...and so on as long as they stay bonded. As you can see, there is no need for negative bonding energy to pull on the rear particle, just redshift.

Quote from: David
Quote
With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass....
If there is a minimum separation distance in the space fabric and particles move in jumps between positions, they would need to be alternating between moving in jumps and being at rest, so that bit makes sense. There is also no movement energy in a stationary object, and hence no "light". If movement energy is the "light", then there would need to be more of it present the faster the object moves.
The faster the object moves, the more doppler effect gets important between the atoms' steps, and the longer the steps get. A short and fast acceleration would produce the same final doppler effect as a long and slower one for instance, so that at the end, the steps would have the same length. More speed at our scale also means more doppler effect and more distance traveled in the same time, whatever the time it took for that acceleration to produce that speed.

Quote
I'm getting a hint of an idea as to what you're hoping to achieve with this, but it seems to me that the frequency of the steps would need to increase for the object to move faster, because without that happening, it looks as if the maximum speed of the object would be limited to half c.
Sorry, I made a mistake, light doesn't have to travel both ways for two steps to be executed since it is emitted during the time a step is executed. Let's imagine that a step emits one photon that starts to be emitted at the beginning of the step and stops being emitted at the end of the same step: one step, one photon. Once a step half the length of the photon, thus half the distance between the particles, would be completed, the photon would be contracted to half its length by doppler effect, which means that, at that moment, it would stand exactly between the two particle, so it would only have to travel half the distance between the particles to produce the step from the other particle if that particle didn't move away during that time, but since the particle starts to move away with the front part of the photon, the rear part of the photon will have to travel twice the length of the step to complete it, so the whole photon will only have traveled during two steps at the end of the process, but since it is contracted during the motion of the first step, and stretched back during the motion of the second step, I think it will finally have traveled at c and the molecule at half c, which is what we should expect since we can draw the steps on the paper one by one and imagine the information taking time between them. Not easy to imagine though, it would be easier to figure out with a simulation.

P.S. I tried to imagine the atoms of the MM interferometer moving by time shifted steps, and I realized that if the steps were half the length of the photon, the distance between the atoms should contract in the same proportion for light to travel the same distance between them than between the mirrors. Coincidence?

Quote from: Andrex
Quote
You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if  the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please?
Not the Doppler effect, but the headlights effect, but neither are terribly relevant because your "light" can't be allowed to miss the target, so you actually need a mechanism to ensure that it always goes to the right place and to ensure that force is then applied in the right direction.
When we look at a star, we see a point, and if that point was moving towards us, the doppler effect would be more important for us that for another observer not inline with the motion. If we had to move away to stay on sync with the light, we would have to move away faster than the other observer. If the other observer had to move away, he would have to move sideways to the motion of the star and slower than the star, thus the star would overtake him after a while and once it would be getting away from him, he would have to circle the star to stay on sync with its light. That's what should happen between two atoms trying to stay on sync, except that aberration would help them orbit around one another if the acceleration of the first atom would not be made directly towards the second one.

Now for the loss of light during the process if that light is emitted in all directions at a time, we have to consider that it would form a standing wave, and that it would only be perceived by an observer standing on the constructive interference fringes of that standing wave. There would almost be no light to observe if we were in line with the two atoms for instance, and for two atoms half a wave away from one another, there would only be one constructive fringe, and it would leave the system at 90 degree to the motion, so if we would put four atoms from four other similar molecules at the same half wave away on the four sides of the central molecule, they would absorb most of the light by interference and stay bonded with that central molecule by the same standing wave process. The steps would also produce a particular effect on the fringes since the approaching one produces blueshift on its emitted light and the leaving one redshift, but I didn't get that far in my analysis yet. Maybe it would only coincide with the steps from the atoms of the other molecule since both molecules have to move on sync if they are side by side, so this way, the steps inside a molecule would not be executed at the same time, and the steps executed by paired atoms from two molecules traveling side by side, or by two atoms traveling one behind the other, would. It seems to work on paper, but if it would ever work like that for real, it would be fascinating. What still makes me think it could is that the steps explain mass and motion of all the sources of light in a very straightforward way, whereas the Higgs only explains the mass of other particles without even explaining its own one.

Quote
You don't have a bulb half way in between the particles radiating off energy, and your particles can't afford to miss any of the "light" either or energy would be lost from moving object all the time until it stops moving. I think you need to explore how much energy needs to be transferred, which direction it's being transferred in and which way it will move the thing that receives it. After that, you can try to work out how that energy is transferred, but I can't see it being done with anything that deserves to be described as light.
Bonded atoms do not emit light either, and they should since that bond is considered to be due to moving electrons. We also consider that electrons do not radiate when they stay on the same orbital, but there is no mechanical explanation for the phenomenon either. At least with the steps, we have a mechanical phenomenon to help us analyze the problem of motion at the atom's scale.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 30/05/2017 21:26:05
What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.

What loss? You throw figures at me that aren't mine and tell me they're wrong - yes, they're wrong because they're your figures and not mine.

Quote
You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.

I worked it out for myself and only then read up on it. You may have attempted to do the same, but you got your maths wrong and became emotionally attached to your incorrect beliefs, and no amount of reasoning or taking you through the numbers can shift you from your wrong position because you are mentally incapable of accepting that you're wrong - as soon as you realise that you've been pinned down on some point where you're wrong, you backtrack to get out of there and turn back into a troll.

Quote
You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong.

Who are this "we"? Everyone who's reading this thread other than you is fully aware that you are the least gifted person on this forum.

Quote
I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

Countless in the sense that you mean zero times. Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

Quote
I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality.

...says someone who can't accept the result of MMX and denies the science. You want the universe to conform to your broken model, and when it fails to do so, you tell everyone who has a model that fits the real universe that they are playing parlour tricks.

Quote
I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.

I have put a lot of time into trying to help you, but it is a thankless task. Fortunately though you've given me everything I wanted from the conversation and that is good information both about how your mind works and about how it doesn't - you're not stupid, but you simply refuse to let your mind work properly because your existing beliefs are too important to you to accept the possibility that they're wrong, and that overrides reason every single time, exactly as happens with religious people. The same fault is also involved in political beliefs where many people are incapable of shifting position no matter how much they are shown to be wrong. There is evidence elsewhere on this forum of me being wrong about things, then recognising that and changing position instead of digging in to defend a wrong position, and it didn't take pages of posts to bring about that change. There is evidence of someone else in this thread quickly changing position on something when he realised he was wrong about something. There is no such evidence of you doing that because you can't accept that you're wrong when you're shown to be wrong. You accuse me of arrogance, but I have backed up everything I've said here by showing you numbers that fit the facts and back my claims. You have failed to do likewise, but throw broken numbers about instead, and you accuse me of producing broken numbers which have nothing to do with me but are merely numbers that you have plucked out of the air. You're slapdash and shoddy, and you tell lies about what happened here. It would be a shocking display if it didn't already fit in with everyone's expectations of you. And as for ignorance, the word is not better suited to anyone than you, because you don't just not know things, but you actively specialise in ignoring the facts. In this thread you have put on a shameful display, but it is only one of hundreds of such displays which you have defecated across this and other forums. From your point of view though you're right about wasting your time talking to me, because you have gained nothing from this at all, just as you gain nothing from talking to anyone else here. You will never gain anything here because you are fixed in your beliefs and no amount of reasoning or showing you that your maths is wrong will ever change that. You are just an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 30/05/2017 21:43:57
What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.

What loss? You throw figures at me that aren't mine and tell me they're wrong - yes, they're wrong because they're your figures and not mine.

Quote
You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.

I worked it out for myself and only then read up on it. You may have attempted to do the same, but you got your maths wrong and became emotionally attached to your incorrect beliefs, and no amount of reasoning or taking you through the numbers can shift you from your wrong position because you are mentally incapable of accepting that you're wrong - as soon as you realise that you've been pinned down on some point where you're wrong, you backtrack to get out of there and turn back into a troll.

Quote
You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong.

Who are this "we"? Everyone who's reading this thread other than you is fully aware that you are the least gifted person on this forum.

Quote
I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

Countless in the sense that you mean zero times. Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

Quote
I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality.

...says someone who can't accept the result of MMX and denies the science. You want the universe to conform to your broken model, and when it fails to do so, you tell everyone who has a model that fits the real universe that they are playing parlour tricks.

Quote
I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.

I have put a lot of time into trying to help you, but it is a thankless task. Fortunately though you've given me everything I wanted from the conversation and that is good information both about how your mind works and about how it doesn't - you're not stupid, but you simply refuse to let your mind work properly because your existing beliefs are too important to you to accept the possibility that they're wrong, and that overrides reason every single time, exactly as happens with religious people. The same fault is also involved in political beliefs where many people are incapable of shifting position no matter how much they are shown to be wrong. There is evidence elsewhere on this forum of me being wrong about things, then recognising that and changing position instead of digging in to defend a wrong position, and it didn't take pages of posts to bring about that change. There is evidence of someone else in this thread quickly changing position on something when he realised he was wrong about something. There is no such evidence of you doing that because you can't accept that you're wrong when you're shown to be wrong. You accuse me of arrogance, but I have backed up everything I've said here by showing you numbers that fit the facts and back my claims. You have failed to do likewise, but throw broken numbers about instead, and you accuse me of producing broken numbers which have nothing to do with me but are merely numbers that you have plucked out of the air. You're slapdash and shoddy, and you tell lies about what happened here. It would be a shocking display if it didn't already fit in with everyone's expectations of you. And as for ignorance, the word is not better suited to anyone than you, because you don't just not know things, but you actively specialise in ignoring the facts. In this thread you have put on a shameful display, but it is only one of hundreds of such displays which you have defecated across this and other forums. From your point of view though you're right about wasting your time talking to me, because you have gained nothing from this at all, just as you gain nothing from talking to anyone else here. You will never gain anything here because you are fixed in your beliefs and no amount of reasoning or showing you that your maths is wrong will ever change that. You are just an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.
What is interesting is that I do not have beliefs , I only have reality.

Quote
Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

Added - by your own answer to  which I already know, you are agreeing there is no length contraction or time dilation or synchronisation offset.   If you are as clever as you presume, then you should ''see'' why you are wrong and why the constant speed of light shows you are wrong.






Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 30/05/2017 22:34:45
David,

   Sorry to beat an old horse but to half the speed of light direction with vector velocity and perpendicular to vector velocity tick at the same rate without physical contraction. Follow my thought process and graph it in your mind. Or if you cannot try using graphing paper. Start at a point on the graphing paper and count out 10 squares up and across. Now from the beginning point draw a line 60 degrees forward than 60 degrees back down. Repeat the process again. Now the 60 degrees is what the perpendicular follow. up and down see where it lands. Now go two lengths of the mirror forward and then back 2/3rds of a mirrors length. There was a third of the length the clock mirror in the back moved without the horizontal photon. The 60 degree angles hit directly in the center of that 1/3 not traveled by the horizontal photon. Work it out on a graph paper. You will see the equal distances the photons take. This creates = tick rates in either direction. No physical contraction only visual. After half the speed of light not sure yet and I have not worked it out. Could be after half the speed of light direction of motion could matter with a light clock.

There is an important issue here that perpendicular maintains continuity with space while vector velocity does not in the direction of motion.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 31/05/2017 16:25:26
David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:

A star and an observer at X are both moving to the left in aether at the same speed and in the same direction. The star emits a photon at observer X while he is inline with the earth which at rest in aether further away. Using your laser principle, the photon should follow the red trajectory on the left to hit observer X while the laser would be pointing at its former position, and to hit the earth, we would need another laser pointing behind the earth and where the photon would travel directly to the earth. I would have saved ten years if the scientific forums that I frequented on the net had used that laser principle to explain the way light moves in a light clock! It works if it travels in aether, but it also works if it travels in SR's specific space, so why did Einstein reject the aether then? Only because he needed his space/time concept for gravitation?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 31/05/2017 20:37:00
I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors, which respects the postulate about the speed of light, and the inertial frame principle. It wouldn't mean that the photons would have a rest mass though, only sufficient mass to add the motion of bodies to their own motion. They would still suffer doppler effect and aberration, but they wouldn't need curved space to be attracted by the sun. I think only one experiment wouldn't give the right data, and it is the Sagnac one, but I think it doesn't fit with SR either.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 31/05/2017 21:03:51
Quote
Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

That is not pointing to an example.

Quote
The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

You haven't given me a speed for the moving one to travel at. If I assume you want to use to the 0.5c figure that we used before, then light travels the full length of the stationary clock in half a second. You also haven't told me which end of the light clock the light's setting out from and which direction the light clock's moving in, but either way, it's not going to be at either end of it at the end of half a second, so you're neither on a tick nor even a half tick, so what use are you hoping to make of the numbers you'd get from this?

Quote
Added - by your own answer to  which I already know, you are agreeing there is no length contraction or time dilation or synchronisation offset.

If I was to do calculations based on the length not contracting, there would automatically be no contraction involved, but the result would not match up to the real universe. You appear to be claiming that I'd agree that the clocks would not go out of sync though, and that's a misrepresentation of my position.

Quote
If you are as clever as you presume, then you should ''see'' why you are wrong and why the constant speed of light shows you are wrong.

You're the one who's making the errors, and you keep misrepresenting my position in order to claim that I'm wrong. We went through the maths of this and you appeared to agree with the 2 2/3 figure for the un-contracted length clock aligned with its direction of travel - all the numbers in square brackets were filled in with your values and they were fully compatible with mine. That 2 2/3 figure was the cycle time in seconds for that light clock moving at 0.5c and was compared with a stationary light clock on which each cycle took 2 seconds. That 2 2/3 figure is incompatible with the real universe because real light clocks contract when they are moving in the direction in which they're aligned (and at other angles too - all except for perpendicular). You are arguing against the null results from MMX and in doing so you are objecting to the way nature works and demanding that it change its ways.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 31/05/2017 23:08:58
Quote
Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

That is not pointing to an example.

Quote
The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

Quote
You haven't given me a speed for the moving one to travel at. If I assume you want to use to the 0.5c figure that we used before, then light travels the full length of the stationary clock in half a second. You also haven't told me which end of the light clock the light's setting out from and which direction the light clock's moving in, but either way, it's not going to be at either end of it at the end of half a second, so you're neither on a tick nor even a half tick, so what use are you hoping to make of the numbers you'd get from this?


The speed nor direction really matters, but in the aim to get you to understand I will add  a speed and we will use 0.5c, I will also add a vector which is cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif.  From the rear to the front of the carriage.

I am not disagreeing your clocks would not tick at different rates because your scenario is designed to show that and that is what would happen.
However you are quite clearly misinterpreting the information in which I do not blame you for, your education learnt you this to be so.


Quote
We went through the maths of this and you appeared to agree with the 2 2/3 figure for the un-contracted length clock aligned with its direction of travel - all the numbers in square brackets were filled in with your values and they were fully compatible with mine

Yes they were the correct results, however you still do not recognise there is no contraction,

Tell me if you think the below is wrong.

The clock at relative rest measures 1 tick which is equal to 1 second

The clock in motion as not yet registered a tick.

However the light travelling in either clock as travelled an equal distance because the speed is constant of the light.

All you are saying to me is that light takes longer to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance.  There is nothing else you have said in all that you said.  That is all it means so why do you think it means something else? t
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 31/05/2017 23:19:38
The energy comes from doppler effect: for two bonded particles, the bonding energy observed by the particles has to stay constant, so if we force one of them to move while it takes time for that information to reach the other one, it produces blueshift on the bonding energy emitted towards the other particle, which moves away from it to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, which produces redshift on the bonding energy emitted backwards to the other particle, which moves towards it after a while to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, ...and so on as long as they stay bonded. As you can see, there is no need for negative bonding energy to pull on the rear particle, just redshift.

This sounds like redshift and blueshift on your bonding energy rather than on light, so why do you need the light at all? If light's being transferred, it's going to push whatever receives it, and if it's redshifted it will merely push less strongly, but it would still be a push. Would it not be better just to think in terms of force carriers? Most importantly though, how is the energy being transferred, or where is it coming from and going to if it isn't being exchanged between the two particles?

Quote
...Not easy to imagine though, it would be easier to figure out with a simulation.

I tried to run your description through my head several times, both yesterday and today, and just couldn't do it. You need a series of diagrams and a description of each giving a cause-and-effect explanation of where the energy's going.

Quote from: Anthrax
When we look at a star, we see a point, and if that point was moving towards us, the doppler effect would be more important for us that for another observer not inline with the motion. If we had to move away to stay on sync with the light, we would have to move away faster than the other observer. If the other observer had to move away, he would have to move sideways to the motion of the star and slower than the star, thus the star would overtake him after a while and once it would be getting away from him, he would have to circle the star to stay on sync with its light.

You don't have a star with your particles though - they can't be putting out light continually with most of it disappearing off into space and taking away energy with it.

Quote
Now for the loss of light during the process if that light is emitted in all directions at a time, we have to consider that it would form a standing wave, and that it would only be perceived by an observer standing on the constructive interference fringes of that standing wave.

Is it possible to set up a standing wave all round a particle or pair of particles using light without energy leaking away?

Quote
There would almost be no light to observe if we were in line with the two atoms for instance, and for two atoms half a wave away from one another, there would only be one constructive fringe, and it would leave the system at 90 degree to the motion, so if we would put four atoms from four other similar molecules at the same half wave away on the four sides of the central molecule, they would absorb most of the light by interference and stay bonded with that central molecule by the same standing wave process.

If you only have an O2 molecule sitting in space, you don't have any other atoms there to absorb light that goes out sideways, so is light going to leak away until the molecule runs out of energy and can't function any more? This is quickly getting into areas which I've never explored though, so you're discussing it with the wrong person. I have put very little thought into how particles interact.

Quote
What still makes me think it could is that the steps explain mass and motion of all the sources of light in a very straightforward way, whereas the Higgs only explains the mass of other particles without even explaining its own one.

At the moment, my mind just goes blank when I try to go into this stuff - it's an area which I don't normally think about to any depth, but you're also adding an extra complexity to it by having things take turns to move in little jumps and with the result that molecules shouldn't be able to move faster than 0.5c unless individual particles can move faster than c when they're doing their jumps.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 31/05/2017 23:34:56
at rest cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif=1.s
e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=1.s

in motion cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif=1.s
e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif=1.s

in motion cd1148bb751fe0b966f726dca900189f.gif=0.666666s

bdb984a032403bb667e131371151f409.gif=1.333333s


Understand that and you may understand, you are changing the parameters of cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif giving (a) and (b) new values .



* real.jpg (42.49 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 2023 times)


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 00:22:00
David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:

Are you also unable to attach image files directly? I can't find any way of making the image appear at that site.

Quote
A star and an observer at X are both moving to the left in aether at the same speed and in the same direction. The star emits a photon at observer X while he is inline with the earth which at rest in aether further away. Using your laser principle, the photon should follow the red trajectory on the left to hit observer X while the laser would be pointing at its former position, and to hit the earth, we would need another laser pointing behind the earth and where the photon would travel directly to the earth.

You haven't described where the lasers are, but if the observer at X points a laser at the star at S, his laser light will hit the star at S' and light from the star which was aimed at point X will reach the observer when he has reached X' (instead of going to X). To hit the earth with a laser, the observer would indeed have to point his laser some way further behind, though this is directly equivalent to thinking that the Earth is moving (while he and the star are stationary) and he has to aim ahead of it on its path if he's to hit it.

Quote
I would have saved ten years if the scientific forums that I frequented on the net had used that laser principle to explain the way light moves in a light clock! It works if it travels in aether, but it also works if it travels in SR's specific space, so why did Einstein reject the aether then? Only because he needed his space/time concept for gravitation?

Einstein actually accepted that there must be an aether of some kind, but he didn't mention it in his theories. What happened was that some aether theories were disproved and it became "established wisdom" that the aether had been disproved as a result, and Einstein's mob failed to point out that this was not the case because it suited them to have their main rival pushed aside and ignored, so they left claims in place that the aether had been proved not to exist (and I have a copy of a university physics textbook from recent times which makes that exact claim), just as they leave claims in place that the one-way speed of light can be pinned down even though every single experiment they've attempted to measure it with has been debunked.

I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,

It doesn't work that way because the speed of the object moving along the arm aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus would be different in different directions relative to the mirrors - when moving one way it would have more of its movement energy stored as relativistic mass instead of kinetic energy than when it's moving the other way. For example, if the apparatus is moving at 0.866c and the objects are moving along the arms at 0.866c relative to the apparatus (as measured from the frame of reference in which the apparatus is stationary), the actual speeds of travel of the object will be 0.99c in one direction and 0 in the other. We're actually moving towards a mechanical clock with this idea - we could use chains going round sprockets and have a bit sticking out of the chain at one point which would ring a bell every time it hits it, sounding out seconds. It would hit the bell, move along the arm, go round a sprocket, come back the other way, go round the other sprocket, and hit the bell again. The chain would length-contract to different extents on the out and back legs but with an overall contraction which would bring the sprockets closer together (and the sprockets would also become elliptical) - the overall contraction would also match the contraction on the non-moving struts holding the sprockets apart with no stresses being imposed on them that wouldn't also be there with the apparatus at rest.

[Edited to change 99c into 0.99c]
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 01/06/2017 11:10:50
David,

You were correct and I was wrong. Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.
1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 01/06/2017 11:57:43
David,

   Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position? In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 01/06/2017 13:37:23
David,

   Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position? In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?
The clock does not contract, the distance changes the light has to travel. Nothing more than that.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 01/06/2017 13:39:29
David,

You were correct and I was wrong. Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.
1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.
1.  NO it is mental
2.true
3.no
4.no idea what you on about


When the clocks tick at different rates it means nothing, the light in either clock still travels the same distance in the same amount of time.  While 1 clock read 1 second and 1 clock reads say 1.1 second, the light has travelled an equal distance in both clocks, except  the 1 second clock has not yet measured the second tick of the light that has already travelled from 1 second to 1.1 second.

Put another way, when the slower clock strikes 1.1s, the rest clock also measures 1.1s but you see it has 1.s not accounting for that time does not stop why the in motion clock light as not completed its cycle.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 17:42:48
Start at a point on the graphing paper and count out 10 squares up and across... No physical contraction only visual.

I was going to respond to this last night, but the forum kept becoming unavailable. Since then, you seem to have made a shift in position, so let me know if there's anything relating to this bit that you still want me to work through.

Quote
After half the speed of light not sure yet and I have not worked it out. Could be after half the speed of light direction of motion could matter with a light clock.

There's no difference around the 0.5c speed - the same rules apply at all speeds.

Quote
There is an important issue here that perpendicular maintains continuity with space while vector velocity does not in the direction of motion.

I'm not clear as to what that means.

Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.

1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.

3 has been tested by space probes going out to other planets with their clocks ticking at the predicted rates, showing no changes of the kind that would happen if they were shifting between different aether bubbles tied to different planets. 2 has been tested by the MMX. I don't know what you mean by 4 because it sounds like the MMX covers it again. We really are only left with 1, unless someone comes up with a viable 5 (and if anyone has found a good 5, I'd love to see it). It isn't likely to happen though, because 1 is already very sound, not just backed by MMX, but by particle accelerators where they can measure the speed of particles moving at close to the speed of light and measure the amount of relativistic mass they're carrying - that extra mass automatically leads to any object moving at 0.866c which attempts to accelerate to 0.866c relative to that starting speed only reaching .099c instead of 1.732c, and that in itself shows why length contraction must occur - it turns a circular orbit into an elliptical one and squashes the ellipse more and more as the system moves faster through space. If you apply that to all things, it ties in perfectly with length-contraction of the arm(s) in the MMX.

Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position?

If you read the text below my interactive MMX diagrams, you'll find a bit about the angle of the mirror - a moving mirror acts as if it's tilted at a different angle from the one it's physically set at, and even a single photon doesn't bounce off a single point, but is spread out, so a part that hits the mirror lower down will hit the mirror when the mirror's in a different place than when another part of the photon hits the mirror higher up. The extraordinary thing about the maths of relativity is that everything auto-corrects to make it impossible to pin down a preferred frame.

Quote
In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?

The vertical path is not shortened at all, and I can't see why you think the change in mirror angle would make that path shorter.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/06/2017 17:46:25
David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:
Are you also unable to attach image files directly? I can't find any way of making the image appear at that site.
I can't attach files either, the admin told me that I was half way from a senior status, so it will take a while. How about downloading adblock at getadblock.com ? It's free and very efficient. I disconnected from hostpics, and I still got the image instantly, so maybe you will. But you got my explanations right anyway. :0)

Quote
I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,
It doesn't work that way because the speed of the object moving along the arm aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus would be different in different directions relative to the mirrors - when moving one way it would have more of its movement energy stored as relativistic mass instead of kinetic energy than when it's moving the other way.
Maybe mass increase, thus added resistance to acceleration due to speed, would affect clocks traveling at relativistic speeds, but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors. Moreover, since the acceleration of the ball would always be perpendicular to the motion, I think it would not suffer mass increase in this direction, so the speed of the system would not affect the speed of the ball in this direction. I suggested this mind experiment to analyze the way light would travel if it had mass, so I think we should not use time dilation or length contraction or mass increase as a way to test it, instead, we should only run it and see if it would need those phenomenon to work properly. For instance, if we give mass to light and it doesn't slow down moving light clocks, we cannot assume that relativistic effects would nevertheless affect the energy of particles, because that energy would also travel like massive particles.

As I said though, a massive light doesn't seem to explain the sagnac effect, so it might be a futile exercise, but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive, so I thought it would be useful to compare them. My atoms' steps mean that some kind of light might be at the origin of motion and mass, so photons may not carry mass the way massive ones do, but they certainly could appear to do so. On the other hand, if the way particles travel in aether depends on the information they exchange between them, then it is normal that they follow the direction given by that information, and to me, only doppler effect and aberration can help them to do so, so if a massive particle follows a straight line between two reflectors whatever the speed of the system, it should be due to doppler effect and aberration at the particles' level.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 18:15:48
I am not disagreeing your clocks would not tick at different rates because your scenario is designed to show that and that is what would happen.
However you are quite clearly misinterpreting the information in which I do not blame you for, your education learnt you this to be so.

Do you understand that light clocks are clocks and that all clocks slow down like light clocks because even if they're clockwork things with cogs and springs they operate using forces which travel at the speed of light and have increasingly lengthened communication distances for these forces as the clocks move faster through space? There is no clock that doesn't slow like a light clock. With a mechanical watch, it's possible to build it more or less on a single plane such that length-contraction has little impact on it if it's aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel through space, but if it's aligned edge on to its direction of travel it has to be length-contracted as much as a light clock in order to keep it ticking at the same rate as the perpendicular clock. Time never slows, but clocks do, and clocks are slowed the same amount regardless of how they are aligned, which wouldn't happen without length-contraction acting on them.

Quote
The clock at relative rest measures 1 tick which is equal to 1 second

The clock in motion as not yet registered a tick.

However the light travelling in either clock as travelled an equal distance because the speed is constant of the light.

Yes - the light has gone the same distance through space, but we have a stationary clock ticking at the fastest rate that it can tick at (without jiggling it, which would be cheating), and we have two moving clocks which tick at a slower rate. The moving MMX is in effect exactly such a pair of moving clocks, and they both tick at the same rate as each other, going directly against the predictions for a universe without length-contraction where they would usually be found to tick at different rates.

Quote
All you are saying to me is that light takes longer to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance.  There is nothing else you have said in all that you said.  That is all it means so why do you think it means something else?

Do you still not understand that moving clocks tick at a slower rate than identical ones which are stationary? Do you still not understand that all clocks are slowed in this way? Do you still not understand that almost everything that has any functionality to it is a clock and its functionality will be slowed down by its speed of movement through space (creating the illusion that time is slowed down while in reality it is merely functionality that is slowed)?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 01/06/2017 18:43:30

Do you still not understand that moving clocks tick at a slower rate than identical ones which are stationary? Do you still not understand that all clocks are slowed in this way? Do you still not understand that almost everything that has any functionality to it is a clock and its functionality will be slowed down by its speed of movement through space (creating the illusion that time is slowed down while in reality it is merely functionality that is slowed)?
HUH?  I know time never slows down, I also know the clocks tick at different frequencies, you do not seem to be understanding anything.

There is no contraction of space, there is no contraction of the carriage, there is no contraction of the light,there is no time dilation ,  if you think there is , then you must be quite ''crazy''.

What you fail to grasp is that nothing is slowed. 


Quote
Yes - the light has gone the same distance through space,

Yes the light is simultaneous in timing and in both clocks the light travels the same distance, it is your numbers that are incorrect.

What you are calling 1 second of the tick in motion is actually 1.1s and your numbers are wrong timed by the clock at rest.
In short you would not need the clock in motion because the clock at rest is the clock that is measuring time accurately.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 18:52:20
...but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors.

Not so - the ball would be carrying more relativistic mass when going in one direction and less when going the other way, so you have to take that into account when working out its speed. That's for a ball bouncing back and forth in the same direction as the apparatus is moving in. If it's moving on the perpendicular path instead, it's actual direction of travel is forwards of that at some angle, and the increase in relativistic mass from the forward component of its motion will also slow the perpendicular component of its motion. If, for example, the ball is moving at 0.5c on the perpendicular path and we then accelerate the apparatus from stationary to 0.5c, the actual speed of the ball will not be 0.707c, but a lower value which I don't currently know how to calculate - the extra mass will slow the perpendicular movement, but I don't know how much extra mass there will be because I don't know what the total speed will be, so I can't work out how much the perpendicular movement will slow, and therefore can't work out what the total speed will be. I could work it out in reverse though by working out the time the ball would have to take to reach the mirror, and that would give me the actual speed of the ball, at which point I could work out the relativistic mass it's carrying and calculate how much that extra mass would slow the perpendicular movement, and then that slowing should match up with the actual speed reduction of the perpendicular component. I'll maybe have a go at doing that later (if no one else is keen to give it a go first).

Quote
...but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive,

It isn't the same. The speed of light through the space fabric is always c, but as soon as you have mass tied up in something, its speed through the space fabric can vary, which is why a particle orbiting a black hole at 0.866c while the black hole is moving along at 0.866c will vary in speed between 0 and 0.99c through the fabric of space, whereas light going round in a circle at the event horizon of a black hole will move at c through the fabric of space throughout (ignoring the slowing caused by its depth in the gravity well).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 19:04:36
HUH?  I know time never slows down, I also know the clocks tick at different frequencies, you do not seem to be understanding anything.

There is no contraction of space, there is no contraction of the carriage, there is no contraction of the light,there is no time dilation ,  if you think there is , then you must be quite ''crazy''.

What you fail to grasp is that nothing is slowed.

The ticking of the clocks is slowed. The functionality of the clocks is slowed. You agree that the clocks tick at different frequencies, so why can't you see that that's a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

Quote
Yes the light is simultaneous in timing and in both clocks the light travels the same distance, it is your numbers that are incorrect.

You agreed with the numbers - you completed assignment 1 and your figures were 100% compatible with mine.

Quote
What you are calling 1 second of the tick in motion is actually 1.1s and your numbers are wrong timed by the clock at rest.

Assuming a speed of travel of 0.5c, what the moving clock asserts is a second is judged to be 1.1547s by the stationary clock. You are trying to claim that the moving clock will tick slow and somehow know that it's ticking slow, so it will correct for the slowing and shout "tick" before the light has completed a cycle, but clocks don't behave like that - they always shout "tick" on the completion of cycles.

Quote
In short you would not need the clock in motion because the clock at rest is the clock that is measuring time accurately.

How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 01/06/2017 21:17:00
You are trying to claim that the moving clock will tick slow and somehow know that it's ticking slow,

You are close to understanding, the clock does not know it is ticking slowly , but we know it is ticking slower. We also know the reason it is ticking slowly, because the light is travelling a greater distance.

Quote
a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

In English ?  what as that even suppose to mean.

Quote
How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?

Because we are discussing relative motion and not absolute motion.

This is what you are doing, you are taking a constant length cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif, then for no reason changing the constant length but still keeping it cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif.
If you actually did it without the ''parlour trick'' and put the new constant lengths appropriately, cd1148bb751fe0b966f726dca900189f.gif  and bdb984a032403bb667e131371151f409.gif, then having the parameters correct, there is no problem or contraction, just explanation that light takes different amount of times to travel different lengths. Which is very simple and obvious.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/06/2017 21:55:11
...but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors.
Not so - the ball would be carrying more relativistic mass when going in one direction and less when going the other way, so you have to take that into account when working out its speed.
Mass only affects resistance to acceleration, so when the ball would be bouncing forward, it would take more energy to accelerate it, but since the reflector would be more massive too, I think it should have the same speed with regard to the reflector than the one it had before hitting it. If we exchange a ball while the earth is traveling through aether, the ball always keeps the same speed with regard to us whatever our position on the earth, so it doesn't keep the same speed with regard to aether, and light does. One thing is sure, it actually takes the same time for a ball to travel forward than backward between two reflectors on earth whatever its speed through aether, and it shouldn't be so for light.

Quote from: David
Quote
...but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive,
It isn't the same. The speed of light through the space fabric is always c, but as soon as you have mass tied up in something, its speed through the space fabric can vary, which is why a particle orbiting a black hole at 0.866c while the black hole is moving along at 0.866c will vary in speed between 0 and 0.99c through the fabric of space, whereas light going round in a circle at the event horizon of a black hole will move at c through the fabric of space throughout (ignoring the slowing caused by its depth in the gravity well).
What I meant is that a massive particle sent perpendicularly to the direction of the moving laser would hit the mirrors, and that a photon sent at an angle to the same direction by an atom of the laser would hit them too. In fact, if we could see the photon, we would see it getting away from the laser at lower speed than the speed of light, and if we didn't see the particle, we could imagine that it is traveling through aether at high speed.

I 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? 

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 22:41:43
Mass only affects resistance to acceleration, so when the ball would be bouncing forward, it would take more energy to accelerate it, but since the reflector would be more massive too, I think it should have the same speed with regard to the reflector than the one it had before hitting it.

If you start with a ball bouncing back and forth between two mirrors/walls on a path perpendicular to the direction the apparatus is going to move in, when you start moving the apparatus, the ball will be left behind, so we have to get the apparatus moving first and then set the ball moving afterwards. If we do that, how hard are we going to push the ball? If the apparatus is moving at 0.866c, for example, all our actions will be running at half speed just as our clocks are slowed, so we push the ball at a speed we think is the same one we gave it when the apparatus was at rest, but we're actually only pushing it up to half that speed. That means the perpendicular component of its speed will be half of what we believe it to be and it will take twice as long to complete the trip. That gives us a different way to work out the speed than the way I outlined last time - you simply multiply the perpendicular component of its speed in a stationary apparatus by the time-dilation factor applying to a moving apparatus).

Quote
One thing is sure, it actually takes the same time for a ball to travel forward than backward between two reflectors on earth whatever its speed through aether, and it shouldn't be so for light.

One thing is sure, and that's that your sure thing isn't the case.

Quote
In fact, if we could see the photon, we would see it getting away from the laser at lower speed than the speed of light...

Relative to the laser, yes.

Quote
I 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.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2017 23:04:28
You are close to understanding, the clock does not know it is ticking slowly , but we know it is ticking slower. We also know the reason it is ticking slowly, because the light is travelling a greater distance.

We would know that if we could tell that we were stationary, but it's more awkward than that. We're on a planet that's moving round a star that's moving round in a galaxy that's moving through the universe. We can't identify a stationary frame of reference, so we don't have a clock that we know to be stationary which all other clocks could be compared with.

Quote
Quote
a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

In English ?  what as that even suppose to mean.

It means exactly what it says. A clock is a device that counts cycles, and to have cycles it needs to have moving parts. In a light clock, the moving parts are light pulses. In a mechanical watch, the moving parts are things like cogs and springs. If the functionality is slowed, it means the cycles take longer to complete. A clockwork car will also move more slowly if its functionality is slowed, so it too behaves like a clock. A person will also walk more slowly and think more slowly when moving because his/her functionality is also slowed.

Quote
Quote
How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?

Because we are discussing relative motion and not absolute motion.

We're discussing both, but one of them depends on knowledge that we have no access to.

Quote
This is what you are doing, you are taking a constant length cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif, then for no reason changing the constant length but still keeping it cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif and e0b03696fbbc9c2e223853cf65179688.gif.
If you actually did it without the ''parlour trick'' and put the new constant lengths appropriately, cd1148bb751fe0b966f726dca900189f.gif  and bdb984a032403bb667e131371151f409.gif, then having the parameters correct, there is no problem or contraction, just explanation that light takes different amount of times to travel different lengths. Which is very simple and obvious.

What makes you think I'm using ab and ba for the moving system? If I was starting with the leftward journey of the photon on a light clock which is moving to the right, the first measurement wouldn't be ca, but ba', and the second measurement wouldn't be ad, but a'b''' (the number of dashes after that last b not being an exact value and varying depending on the speed involved - all I'm trying to indicate with this is that aa' is a shorter distance than half bb''').
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 02/06/2017 13:46:11


What makes you think I'm using ab and ba for the moving system? If I was starting with the leftward journey of the photon on a light clock which is moving to the right, the first measurement wouldn't be ca, but ba', and the second measurement wouldn't be ad, but a'b''' (the number of dashes after that last b not being an exact value and varying depending on the speed involved - all I'm trying to indicate with this is that aa' is a shorter distance than half bb''').
I think you are using cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif because that is the obvious system to use, and admit tingly by yourself you are making this error.
You are changing the (a) constant and (b) constant so the results you get are expected and there is nothing odd about it.

As yet you have still not shown any contraction, in fact you have not shown really anything that actually means anything of importance. You have shown light takes more time to travel more distance and less time to travel less distance, then you want to try and make more out of it, although there is nothing more to it.


Now if you want to say there is a distance contraction of the space the light has to travel or an expansion of the distance of space the light has to travel, that would be acceptable fact.
The carriage itself does not contract, the space itself does not contract, the light does not contract, the distance changes and that is all there is too it.

Quote
a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

Yes, a moving clocks functionality is being slowed, but the problem is it means absolutely nothing apart from your clock is not a constant and can not measure constant time accurately.

Time passes by at an infinite speed , it is not measurable  accurately.

t=←∞

You can realise this if you try to move away from 0.  Please try to move ''forward'' at any speed without leaving an immediate past.

0→

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 02/06/2017 14:09:53
Realise this, while you are focusing on the events unfolding inside the carriage , outside the carriage the light is always being synchronous through a distance of space.


* train.jpg (45.75 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 1809 times)





Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 02/06/2017 14:13:24
Then when you finally get this straight in your mind and removed your confusion, we can go onto some real science and discuss volume expansion and contraction by the affects of thermodynamics and motion.

I assure you if you travelled to the sun, your molecules will expand isotropic.  I assure you when it is cold you shrink.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 02/06/2017 14:17:37
An object in relative  motion will isotropic contract because it loses the time share entropy scheme of a rest body if at relative rest.
I am talking real physical contractions here, not myths.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/06/2017 17:27:32
Box,

You appear, at times, to agree that there are three different tick rates for the clocks: the stationary clock ticks more quickly than the two moving ones, and the perpendicular moving clock ticks more quickly than the non-perpendicular one. You agreed with the numbers for this when you completed assignment 1.

Perhaps it will help to add a fourth clock so that we have two stationary clocks aligned perpendicular to each other. Those two clocks tick at the same rate as each other.

Now look at the other pair of clocks that are moving - they are not ticking at the same rate as each other because their movement through space slows the ticking on one of them more than the other.

If we bring our moving pair of clocks to a halt so that they are stationary too, they will then tick at the same rate as each other. We should be able to use a pair of clocks like this to detect our movement through space, and that's what the MMX was intended to do, but it produced a null result even though it was guaranteed to be moving at high speed through space during some part of its orbit round the sun. That is the big problem for you, because the MMX would not produce a null result all the time if you were right - it might do so at one part of the Earth's orbit if the Earth happens to be stationary at that point, but six months later it will be moving at 60km/s.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 02/06/2017 18:33:14
Quote from: David
Quote
I 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.
Then 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.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/06/2017 21:18:27
Then 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»?

Because some people get the idea into their heads that time is slowing down for a moving object, but all that's actually slowing for them is their functionality due to increased communication distances for things like light and forces. Time continues to pass at the same rate as for a stationary object. The problem is that many people have difficulty understanding what time is, and Einstein messed badly with their minds. I want to untangle the mess for them by showing them that time relates to how fast light moves through the space fabric and that it passes at the same rate for stationary objects as for moving ones, not always matching up to the amount of time that a clock measures as passing. With SR where there is no absolute frame of reference, a clock will supposedly always tick at the rate that time is passing and not at a slower rate, and the claim is that the speed of light across the clock is always the same in all directions.

Quote
I still have a doubt though, because I can't figure out how a light clock could register less tics while moving through aether.

But you've seen in the interactive MMX diagrams that the stationary apparatus completes a "tick" in half the time taken for the one moving at 0.866c, so how can moving clocks fail to count up fewer ticks? The only problem we have is that we can't pin down which clocks are stationary because every clock appears to behave in such a way that it could be stationary with all clocks moving relative to it appearing to be the ones that are running slow. No clock can detect that it is running slow, and there's no observer in the universe who can point to a clock that he can prove is not running slow.

Quote
We can attribute the time dilation phenomenon to the atoms, but if a light clock can't measure it, how could the atoms do?

They can't measure it - nothing in the universe can.

Quote
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?

Why do you think the atoms would need to do so? They don't do anything different from light clocks and there is no way for them to detect whether they're moving or not.

Quote
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.

Indeed - the exchange seems identical to them, but it isn't and it happens more slowly.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 02/06/2017 22:04:30
Box,

You appear, at times, to agree that there are three different tick rates for the clocks: the stationary clock ticks more quickly than the two moving ones, and the perpendicular moving clock ticks more quickly than the non-perpendicular one. You agreed with the numbers for this when you completed assignment 1.


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?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 03/06/2017 13:26:54
Because the measurement of time would be meaningless if orientation mattered for tick rate.
Observations suggest tick rate is the same in all orientations.
Math has to follow a theory to be correct but a theory that follows math does not have to be correct.
Either the physical clock has to contract or space has to lengthen to fit the math to the observation.
We do have an observation that space Aether lengthens in the wavelength produced with increased velocity.
This follows the equivalence principle.

In GR Aether space energy has to expand to allow Black holes to form. Energy keeps atoms apart until the expansion become greater than the speed of light as gravity. We might have the same issue equivalence with Doppler affect on space expansion. If light has to travel further for the same distance the effect would be the same as physical contraction while still following relativity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 03/06/2017 14:19:05
A quick break down of thread so far for those who do not understand.   Science is arguing that a train carriage shrinks in length when in motion. (contracts),

I am arguing that the cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif length constant of the train carriage remains constant in any position of travel. Science claims this contraction but has no explanation or physical example of a contraction, they are making it up.

What they do explain is a contraction and expansion of the length of space between cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif.  However this is not a physical contraction of the space itself or the light or the carriage.   it is a distance decrease and increase, no more , no less.


added- This is what we are discussing


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 03/06/2017 14:33:19
Because the measurement of time would be meaningless if orientation mattered for tick rate.
Observations suggest tick rate is the same in all orientations.
Math has to follow a theory to be correct but a theory that follows math does not have to be correct.
Either the physical clock has to contract or space has to lengthen to fit the math to the observation.
We do have an observation that space Aether lengthens in the wavelength produced with increased velocity.
This follows the equivalence principle.

In GR Aether space energy has to expand to allow Black holes to form. Energy keeps atoms apart until the expansion become greater than the speed of light as gravity. We might have the same issue equivalence with Doppler affect on space expansion. If light has to travel further for the same distance the effect would be the same as physical contraction while still following relativity.
Tick rate is the same with no direction.  Any measurement after 0 becomes immediate history even standing ''still''.

The speed of time is   ←∞ for all observers.  Our brain information update of observation is updated immediately by travelling information packets. There is no space between receiving information packets that enters your eyes. The live feed is continuous and without breaks or pauses. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/06/2017 15:39:53
Quote from: David
The problem is that many people have difficulty understanding what time is, and Einstein messed badly with their minds.
To me, time is related to constant frequencies. If there wouldn't be constant frequencies to observe, or if frequencies would vary too rapidly, we couldn't measure time. I also think time exists because phenomenon rely on timing to exist: it is so for small my steps for example.

Quote from: David
Indeed - the exchange seems identical to them, but it isn't and it happens more slowly.
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.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/06/2017 23:45:12
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?

Look at my interactive MMX diagrams again and study them properly - it's all there and has been from the start, so I don't know why you don't just trust your eyes. The horizontal and vertical paths on the stationary MMX on the left are directly equivalent to a pair of light clocks ticking in sync with each other (a tick being the time it takes for the pulse of light to go from the angled mirror to the ends of the arms and back), and the horizontal and vertical paths on the moving apparatus on the right show you that they don't tick in sync with each other unless the horizontal arm is length-contracted (as in the second version of the diagram). The version with length-contraction shows what happens with the MMX in the real universe, while the first version shows what would happen without length-contraction, and that wouldn't produce a null result.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 04/06/2017 00:08:29
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.

The laser light should technically be of a lower frequency on my moving MMX diagrams than it is on the stationary ones because that light's produced by a slowed mechanism in the laser - with the apparatus moving at 0.866c, the frequency will be halved, so what's shown as a pulse of red light on the moving apparatus should be somewhere into the infra-red. The detector will also have its mechanism slowed though, so it will still detect the light as being the usual frequency, just as the laser thinks it's putting out the usual frequency of light.

Quote
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?

The time dilation is already shown if you look at the counter under the diagram. It starts at a negative value and reaches zero when the light gets split at the semi-silvered mirror. That moment would represent a tick of a clock if you were to imagine the MMX apparatus to be a pair of light clocks. The next tick occurs when the light returns to the same mirror, and you could imagine that another pulse could be sent out from the laser and timed to split at the mirror at the same time as the previous pulse returns to it, thereby generating an ongoing series of equally-spaced ticks. On the stationary apparatus, a cycle (between two ticks) takes place in 250 counts of the counter, while on the moving apparatus a cycle takes 500 ticks. (The counter's time is based on a stationary clock.) We can see the cycle taking twice as long on the moving apparatus and that is the time dilation shown visually.

Quote
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.

If you're co-moving with the moving apparatus, your entire functionality is slowed to half speed - all your cells and atoms are like clocks, doing things in cycles which take twice as long to run through because of the doubled communication distances. A laser, or anything else that produces light, will be cycling something as it generates a photon (hence the sine-wave shape) and that cycling will be running at half the normal rate, thereby "writing" photons into the aether with a lower frequency.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 04/06/2017 12:56:14
Mass contains kinetic energy while space has an energy limit of c. There is a ratio of energy used vs. energy available shown as a reaction rate increase and decrease. You can decrease available energy by increasing mass GR or by increasing the speed of mass SR. There is an equivalence between GR and SR relative to reaction rate. With an increase in mass GR the dilation of mass is physical so the cell length to measure a frequency increases to maintain the calibration of wavelength between frames. The reaction rate of course is based on the constant speed of light that has to go further in a dilated cell for GR. This happens all the way up to mass gravity acceleration at the speed of light where energy can no longer keep atoms apart and a BH is formed. There is no relativity within a BH. There is no energy within a BH and it becomes entirely kinetic.


thebox

  We have to recognize observations that the orientation of a clock does not affect the tick rate while the graphing of the physical paths would if it were not for some intervention. Physical contraction of length is one option that would align math to what is observed. The Doppler in space suggests a medium that speed pushes against to change the angle of light. Its interesting to know the electron path to the proton ratio is a marble to a football field. Speed should have no affect on orbit or create the Doppler affect without a medium. Motion would not be possible without an energy source. We recognize an energy limit of c while not recognizing where energy itself resides. Energy is c and the pattern on c (radiation) propagated at c shows energy of space is spin of dark mass. Relativity would not work if space moved by a direction as Einstein suggested. But spin of dark mass particles would satisfy relativity. Another option would be the spin state of energy rotates with planets, solar system, galaxies and the universe. In that case all of our measurements would be from a stationary frame for measurement locally relative to energy available as a ratio between kinetic used and c total. We have to understand energy before we can really understand our measurements.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 04/06/2017 17:11:46
Quite clearly I am going to have to up my game even further to get people to understand.


Let me use your own confusions to produce a ''parlour trick'' to show you how easy it is to manipulate the imagination.


An observer from above the train carriage observes light in the carriage travels slower than the light in the light clock.

 
* for idiots.jpg (30.52 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 1760 times)

Proving the speed of light is not constant.



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 04/06/2017 22:25:19
While your eyes can be fooled math cannot
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 05/06/2017 15:50:13
While your eyes can be fooled math cannot
The point being Gog , when you look at the carriage from the side view and observe the angled paths of light travelling left to right or vice versus, your eyes are being fooled into creating foolish maths that means nothing.
You are being fooled, the light is directional to your eyes and not travelling left to right .   

* light1.jpg (29.72 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 1728 times)

Einstein wrongly uses the photon in his setup, the photon we can not  even observe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 05/06/2017 16:37:20
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 17:08:36
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

I think you might be allowed to post working links very soon. I'd like to follow both of those, so please give it another couple of goes.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 05/06/2017 17:19:57
This system is confusing. I can't upload graphics, but can post links.
I test the links to be sure they work.
????????????????????
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 05/06/2017 18:32:38
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r


I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 19:54:14
This system is confusing. I can't upload graphics, but can post links.
I test the links to be sure they work.
????????????????????

I'm confused by it too now - your links are actually working despite the "no follow" written after them which usually disables links by breaking them.

Quote
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.

That bit could cause some confusion - in SR there is no physical change in the object, but the object will still fit into a smaller space when measured in other frames of reference, so the contraction is real for those frames. This becomes manifestly clear when you can fit more objects of a given length into a limited space around the edge of a circle when they're rotating round it than when they're just sitting still beside it, so it's important that people understand that it is not merely a visual contraction - it is a physical contraction for those frames, but that those frames don't provide a true picture of the underlying geometry of SR within which those objects maintain their full uncontracted lengths.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/06/2017 20:00:07
How about my animation David, can you see it now?
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 20:11:22
How about my animation David, can you see it now?
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)

Still no luck there. I'll see if it works better from my quotation of it...

...same problem, but the link may not be broken in itself - it looks as if it's an issue with the site being linked to:-

"This site can’t provide a secure connection

www . hostingpics . net uses an unsupported protocol.
ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH"
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/06/2017 20:43:24
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.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 21:00:44
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.

Having seen something of the scale of the spam attacks in the past, I can see why it's done - it helps to put them off bothering because they quickly learn that they can't get near to posting any viable links before they're banned.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/06/2017 21:29:37
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. I'm still working on my answer to your last post.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2017 22:13:41
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.

I have managed to view it, and the two black circles move along in jumps.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/06/2017 23:00:34
That's it! The black circles represent bonded particles. Now you have to imagine that a photon escapes from the left particle during its step, that it is blueshifted in the direction of the right particle since the step is made in that direction, and that it produces the step from that right particle because it has to get away from the left one for its own escaping photon to stay on sync with the incoming photon, thus with the step from the left particle. It works when the photon is traveling to the right, but when a photon escapes from the step of the right particle, it takes less time to reach the left particle than it took for the light from the left one to reach the right one, because that left particle has gotten closer during its step,  and I can't figure out what would happen. Since the steps looked natural on the paper, I thought they would be physically possible, but I now have a hard time to figure how they would.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 06/06/2017 16:47:20
Quote
Quote from: David



Quote

I 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 Repteux
Then 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.

Its all in our definition of time. Energy c is always constant as an amount of energy available. Motion deducts from the cycling of the electron in an atom. Consider energy c of and from space rather than from the electron. So it moves the electron and propagates the photon wave. A photon being a wave of LET Lorentz Ether Theory. You have to siphon some of the orbital speed in order to move the atom through space. The electron is the motor at constant revolutions with energy c. Having to move through more space with velocity than at relative rest naturally the cycle time is reduced proportionally with the relative propagation of the photon wave for tick rate. The longer orbit of the electron would also produce a greater wavelength.

There is an Aether grid pattern with particle spin that would produce Relativity. Its just to fantastic to even consider. Unless electrons move themselves and photons move themselves independent of a source. Then the relationship between GR and SR is just a coincidence.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/06/2017 18:15:39
It works when the photon is traveling to the right, but when a photon escapes from the step of the right particle, it takes less time to reach the left particle than it took for the light from the left one to reach the right one, because that left particle has gotten closer during its step,  and I can't figure out what would happen. Since the steps looked natural on the paper, I thought they would be physically possible, but I now have a hard time to figure how they would.

If you imagine two balls connected by a spring, you could set them moving through space by pushing one towards the other. That rear ball would compress the spring and lead to the lead ball being accelerated forward while decelerating the rear ball, possibly to a halt for a moment. The spring would then be stretched instead of compressed and would decelerate the lead ball, possibly to a halt, while accelerating the rear ball back up to speed, and this cycle could repeat of a long time, mimicking to some degree your two circles taking turns to move along. Perhaps there is something in this parallel that might relate to what you're trying to do with photons.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/06/2017 21:58:23
Its all in our definition of time. Energy c is always constant as an amount of energy available. Motion deducts from the cycling of the electron in an atom. Consider energy c of and from space rather than from the electron. So it moves the electron and propagates the photon wave. A photon being a wave of LET Lorentz Ether Theory. You have to siphon some of the orbital speed in order to move the atom through space. The electron is the motor at constant revolutions with energy c. Having to move through more space with velocity than at relative rest naturally the cycle time is reduced proportionally with the relative propagation of the photon wave for tick rate. The longer orbit of the electron would also produce a greater wavelength.

It seems possible that every part of matter involves all the energy from which it is built is moving around within it at c, so if the matter is to move along through space, its immediately obvious that its entire functionality will slow. You said before though that the space fabric is energy, and I wonder how you make that work. As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction, and it also accumulates extra mass such that there is twice as much of it when it's moving at 0.866c. That is a higher energy density which the fabric has to be able to accommodate, and I find it hard to imagine this as anything other than energy moving through the fabric rather than being the fabric. I also want to understand where your energy of the fabric has a role in this (or in anything).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/06/2017 03:37:33
It seems possible that every part of matter involves all the energy from which it is built is moving around within it at c,
That might be so but very unlikely. Controlled by the inside the likelihood of synchronization for billions of years would be can we suggest billions to one?


Quote
so if the matter is to move along through space, its immediately obvious that its entire functionality will slow. You said before though that the space fabric is energy, and I wonder how you make that work.

Take the Aether point by point and have complimentary spin. [/quote]
Quote
As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,
What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it.

Quote

and it also accumulates extra mass such that there is twice as much of it when it's moving at 0.866c.
Again unless energy is outside of mass there is no relativity.
Quote
That is a higher energy density which the fabric has to be able to accommodate, and I find it hard to imagine this as anything other than energy moving through the fabric rather than being the fabric.
Apparently so does everyone else.
Quote
I also want to understand where your energy of the fabric has a role in this (or in anything).

The role is motion itself being possible.


Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 07/06/2017 15:27:17
Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions.  I  hate to say it , the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/06/2017 16:50:55
Quote from: David
If you imagine two balls connected by a spring, you could set them moving through space by pushing one towards the other. That rear ball would compress the spring and lead to the lead ball being accelerated forward while decelerating the rear ball, possibly to a halt for a moment. The spring would then be stretched instead of compressed and would decelerate the lead ball, possibly to a halt, while accelerating the rear ball back up to speed, and this cycle could repeat of a long time, mimicking to some degree your two circles taking turns to move along. Perhaps there is something in this parallel that might relate to what you're trying to do with photons.
The spring would then be transferring kinetic energy into potential energy and vice versa, which is effectively what light would do, so let's see what might happen if we would accelerate the left ball strongly but for a short while.

First observation, it wouldn't stop right after the acceleration would stop as I expected from particles, it would move forward for a while because of its inertia. The steps already represent inertia since inertia is simply the combination of motion and resistance to acceleration, but they also show how those two phenomenon would develop at different scales. The energy stored in the steps between two atoms represent the loss of mass due to their bonding, and the energy stored in the steps between their components represent the loss of mass due to their own bonding, so if we consider the energy stored in the steps between all the components of an atom, we get its total mass. What happens is that when an atom makes a step, its components make billions of them, because they have to justify very precisely the step of the atom they are part of. So when we accelerate an atom, we accelerate its own step, and in the same time, we also accelerate the steps from all its components. It doesn't take much force to accelerate the step of the atom, thus it does not show much resistance to that acceleration, but it's components resist more, and their own components resist even more. With the steps, each time we measure the mass of an atom, we thus measure the energy it takes to accelerate the steps from all its components. If a particle is not bonded to another one, the light that bonds its components does not have to escape from their steps to produce a bonding at the particle's scale, so the steps between those components offer more resistance to their acceleration, thus they develop more mass.

Back to the first step made by the left particle, and let's assume that a step takes the same time to decelerate than the time it took to accelerate. Let's accelerate that particle until it gets to a top speed, and then let it decelerate until it stops. It stops when  there is no doppler effect between the two particles, which doesn't mean that the right particle did not begin to make a step, only that the photon escaping from that step has not yet reached the left particle, which is actually closer to it than when both were at rest, so when that right particle will begin its own step, the photon escaping from that step will still have less distance to travel than the one the photon from the left particle had, so it doesn't work better. With light, we cannot only consider the stored energy, we also have to consider the distance it travels. With a spring, there would also be a loss of stored energy due to heat, so the vibration would be damping with time, which is not the case for what we call inertial motion.

I found a new way to present the problem, and it has something to do with contraction. As I said, if we accelerate the left particle, we automatically shorten the distance between the two particles for a while, but if we keep accelerating that particle after the right one has moved away, the doppler effect from the right one would pull the left one forward while it is still being accelerated. This way, the distance between the two particles would contract right at the acceleration, and it would stay contracted until a deceleration occurs. The doppler energy would still be trapped between the two particles, and it would still produce their motion, except that this time, they would move at the same time, so as for the MMx mirrors, it wouldn't matter if the photons would not travel the same distance. It is more difficult to imagine, but I think it can work, and it would have the advantage of providing a mechanism for length contraction that doesn't need the two arms of the MMx, only one. By the way, what do you think of Yuri Yvanov's contraction happening to both arms of the interferometer? Did you have time to study it?
( rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#2.05 )
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/06/2017 16:55:05
Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions. I hate to say it, the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.
It sure is, reason why we shouldn't take too seriously what is happening to us, except when it hurts for real, not just in our heads.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/06/2017 17:53:44
the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

Relative to what?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/06/2017 19:17:37
Relative to the better place we imagine I guess, which would not be better after a while of course.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/06/2017 19:52:10
Quote
As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,
What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it.

"Compresses" wasn't the right word for what I intended to say. My point was that there's more energy contained in that part of the fabric, and a lot more would be there if there was a black hole present, so how can this energy be the fabric rather than merely being held in some way by the fabric while passing through it?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/06/2017 20:17:37
Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions.  I  hate to say it , the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

You've been shown that a pair of perpendicular light clocks will tick in sync if stationary and that they will go out of sync if they are moving unless there is length-contraction. You're free to reject length-contraction if you wish, but I can't understand why the idea of it offends you so much. By rejecting it, you leave yourself unable to account for the null result of MMX and for the behaviour of particles in particle accelerators (where relativistic mass prevents them from reaching c no matter how much energy you add to them and necessarily leads to length-contracted orbits for systems moving at high speed through space), so you appear to be the one who's suffering from a delusion because you reject the science instead of accommodating it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 07/06/2017 22:02:34
Quote from: GoC on Today at 03:37:33QuoteAs material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it."Compresses" wasn't the right word for what I intended to say. My point was that there's more energy contained in that part of the fabric, and a lot more would be there if there was a black hole present, so how can this energy be the fabric rather than merely being held in some way by the fabric while passing through it?

Linking electrons by the same speed insures energy is not inside of mass for motion. Clocks slow with more mass not speed up so energy is dilated.

There is no energy nor time in a BH. Unless you have a different definition of time. Time is related to c in kinetic vs. potential energy. Potential energy of space is the greatest where clocks run fastest. All mass does is dilate space energy we measure as tick rate. There is no fabric inside a BH. Fabric bend completely around a BH. It's not that light cannot escape a BH, light cannot reach a BH. Relativity is not part of a BH. BH's are mass suckers only, void of time energy.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 08/06/2017 00:37:54
Linking electrons by the same speed insures energy is not inside of mass for motion. Clocks slow with more mass not speed up so energy is dilated.

When moving clocks collide, all that relativistic mass is unleashed as energy (which is what it was all along).

Quote
There is no energy nor time in a BH.

There's rather a lot of it if you convert the mass to energy.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 08/06/2017 11:42:37
When moving clocks collide, all that relativistic mass is unleashed as energy (which is what it was all along).
Energy creates mass in suns by fusion. In the life cycle of a sun larger elements are also formed until a red giant finishes the smaller suns life cycle. All suns create hydrogen from dark mass energy similar to galaxies forming BH's for another fractal universe of size. Consider our environment of the electron traveling the distance of a football field to the size of a marble for the proton.
So what is the definition of fundamental energy vs. kinetic energy we recognize as work being done? Your ideas focus on work being done and kinetic relationships.


QuoteThere is no energy nor time in a BH.There's rather a lot of it if you convert the mass to energy.

Fission does happen in suns but fusion remains king to the red giant. Suns cannot get rid of their own waste production (higher elements) and choke out the fusion fission process with hydrogen.

BH's are the ultimate entropy never to be fundamental energy again as they continue to suck the mass from the universe. I consider it unlikely the universe is as small as science suggests and I would expect spectral limits of detection between observable images and noise.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 09/06/2017 19:42:55
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x









A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r


I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.

If that's a complement, as it appears to be, I'd better have it bronzed!
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 09/06/2017 20:34:43
This is a graphic for your 2:1 scenario for anaut A and B.
No issues with this. If we substitute E (earth) for A, what does .99c have to do with anything?
The relative speed shoud be the same for each observer.
https://app.box.com/s/r69uq5s2o19s0o72rm8sfvc2ft6z2e2a
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 09/06/2017 21:06:35
What's the 0.99c?

Well, if you consider yourself to be stationary and a planet goes past you at 0.866c, a rocket moving in that same direction at 0.99c will appear to observers on the planet to be moving at 0.866c relative to them (and they will also measure you as moving at 0.866c in the opposite direction).

(0.866 + 0.866) / (1 + 0.866 x 0.866) = apx. 0.99.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 10/06/2017 19:10:56
What's the 0.99c?

Well, if you consider yourself to be stationary and a planet goes past you at 0.866c, a rocket moving in that same direction at 0.99c will appear to observers on the planet to be moving at 0.866c relative to them (and they will also measure you as moving at 0.866c in the opposite direction).

(0.866 + 0.866) / (1 + 0.866 x 0.866) = apx. 0.99.
The initial conditions were B leaving E at .866 and returning at .866. Thus B would measure E leaving at .866 in the opposite direction. There is no 3rd observer, and no need for composition of velocities.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 10/06/2017 19:13:41
A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r


I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.
The graphics are not representing images as perceived by the observer. They are histories of object speeds and light speeds for an interval of time, and their  interactions. They are not intended to be viewed as road maps.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/06/2017 20:06:08
You asked,

...what does .99c have to do with anything?

I assumed that you're referring to some place in my webpage where I've used that figure. If so, then it involved three things moving relative to each other. With the interactive Spacetime diagram I have two planets moving past each other and two rockets which belong to them (one each), and that's the only place on the page where I mention the 0.99c figure. When the planets meet, the rockets switch which planet they accompany for a while before racing after their own planet some time later to be reunited with it. During that part of the process you can have one planet regarding itself as stationary while another planet passes it and moves away at 0.866c, then a rocket which stopped with the stationary planet for a time will chase after its home planet at 0.99c (a speed which will be measured by observers on that other planet as 0.866c). If the first planet regards itself as moving at 0.866c though, it will imagine that it is passing a stationary planet and that when the rocket heads home to the stationary planet it will travel there at 0.866c, but even then the 0.99c figure is still involved as the other rocket will have to chase the first planet at 0.99c from the stationary planet.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 11/06/2017 13:47:51
You also mentioned .99c in the cyclotron.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/06/2017 18:29:16
You also mentioned .99c in the cyclotron.

Not on my web page, and the title of your diagram (and its content) suggested that you were referring to its mention there.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 12/06/2017 11:47:05
I did not have the diagram. I was just mentioning where you said 0.99c during this thread.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 12/06/2017 17:51:57
I did not have the diagram. I was just mentioning where you said 0.99c during this thread.

I thought I was replying to phyti and didn't realise you'd jumped into that thread of the conversation, but yes - I remember using it somewhere in this thread in relation to particle accelerators.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/06/2017 17:02:28
Hi David,

I'm not sure you saw the last paragraph from my last message (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70299.msg516166#msg516166), so here it is again:

«I found a new way to present the problem, and it has something to do with contraction. As I said, if we accelerate the left particle, we automatically shorten the distance between the two particles for a while, but if we keep accelerating that particle after the right one has moved away, the doppler effect from the right one would pull the left one forward while it is still being accelerated. This way, the distance between the two particles would contract right at the acceleration, and it would stay contracted until a deceleration occurs. The doppler energy would still be trapped between the two particles, and it would still produce their motion, except that this time, they would move at the same time, so as for the MMx mirrors, it wouldn't matter if the photons would not travel the same distance. It is more difficult to imagine, but I think it can work, and it would have the advantage of providing a mechanism for length contraction that doesn't need the two arms of the MMx, only one. By the way, what do you think of Yuri Yvanov's contraction happening to both arms of the interferometer? Did you have time to study it?
( rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#2.05 )
»

I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though. Once accelerated, these particles manage to stay on sync even if light takes more time between them, and they use doppler effect to do so. Whatever the time a photon takes to travel between them, that photon is redshifted one way and blue shifted the other way, and it is the only information that those particles can use to stay on sync. The time the photon takes is as unavailable to them as it is to us, otherwise two observers could tell which one of them was moving just by looking at their clocks once reunited. By the way, if your two observers in your ships can't tell which one is moving, then how could one of them record less time on his clock than the other? Wouldn't it mean that he was the one to travel?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 13/06/2017 17:58:10
I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though

I am still struggling with the measurements of the mmx. Is it just the mirrors contracting? Does the space between the mirrors contract? Was the space between the mirrors already contracted when the measured distances between the mirrors took place? Is there a way to measure accurately enough with contracted length?

Has the MMX been done that can rotate each distances for orientation without changing their physical distances (Other than suspected length contraction ) with the rotation?
How do you prove space Aether does not rotate with mass?

If the Aether is energy and energy rotates with mass all bets for length contraction is off. The Null result would just mean what they were testing for ( stationary particles earth was moving through) was invalid. It would also mean the standard model is incorrect.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 13/06/2017 21:14:30
Hi David,

I'm not sure you saw the last paragraph from my last message (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70299.msg516166#msg516166), so here it is again:

I did see it and intended to reply to it, but every time I attempt to do so I run into the same problem - it just makes my mind go blank, probably because its trying to build upon a number of things that I haven't yet fully got my mind around, and I'm just not ready to go there. There's a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve things moving along in jumps, and I'd rather acquire a complete understanding of that first before abandoning it in favour of something that might turn out to be more correct but which adds a lot of additional complexity. However, illustrating it using diagrams like Иванов has done could make a considerable difference.

Quote
By the way, what do you think of Yuri Yvanov's contraction happening to both arms of the interferometer? Did you have time to study it?

I suspect he's working with the wrong frequency, not realising that the thing producing the light will have a slowed mechanism that leads to a longer wavelength, so he's producing numbers for a shorter wavelength than reality provides and is predicting a shrinking apparatus as a result, which means that his prediction won't match up to the time dilation measured by experiments. That means though that the rest of his work could be spot on once that correction's been made.

Quote
I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though. Once accelerated, these particles manage to stay on sync even if light takes more time between them, and they use doppler effect to do so. Even if a photon takes more time to travel between them, that photon is redshifted one way and blue shifted the other way, and it is the only information that those particles can use to stay on sync. The time the photon takes is as unavailable to them as it is to us, otherwise two observers could tell which one of them was moving just by looking at their clocks once reunited.

I'm having trouble picturing when these photons set out relative to when which particles are moving, when they arrive, etc., and that's why it would help if it was accompanied by a series of diagrams to show the progress of how the system moves along.

Quote
By the way, if your two observers in your ships can't tell which one is moving, then how could one of them record less time on his clock than the other? Wouldn't it mean that he was the one to travel?

One account of the action claims that one observer is stationary throughout while the other moves away and then moves back, so the one that moved will have slowed clocks and will record less time as having passed. Another account of the action claims that one observer is stationary for part of the time and then moves much faster than the other in order to catch up with him while the other is moving at a constant speed throughout, so in this case the latter has clocks running slow throughout while the former has clocks running faster at first, but then his clocks are slowed much more severely when he travels really fast, and that leads to his clocks recording less time overall.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 14/06/2017 11:40:16
David

   Was the measured distance in the MMX mirrors done with the contracted length?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 14/06/2017 19:10:28
David;
Would you reconsider your scenario of A and B, with B moving at .866c?

Since clock processes are periodic or frequencies, they are perceived as doppler shifted depending on relative speed of emitter and detector.

For diverging paths,   f'=f*sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)].

For converging paths,   f'=f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].

One is the inverse of the other.

In 'doppler1', B is moving at .6c relative to A. Each emits 1 flash per minute, controlled by their local clock.
Below the origin, f'= sqrt[1/4]=1/2.
Above the origin, f'= sqrt[4]=2.

In 'doppler2', B is moving at .866c relative to A. Each emits 1 flash per minute, controlled by their local clock.

Below the origin, f'= sqrt[.072]=.27
Above the origin, f'= sqrt[13.925]=3.73.

In the second case f' is almost 4.
If f'=4, solving for v gives 15/17= .8824.
https://app.box.com/s/bozja9eerupydqnja3spl6oeqbhezz9f

https://app.box.com/s/o6dvgo5nxkt8dqe7pn7h8bzquorwciv2
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/06/2017 23:00:02
I am still struggling with the measurements of the mmx. Is it just the mirrors contracting? Does the space between the mirrors contract? Was the space between the mirrors already contracted when the measured distances between the mirrors took place? Is there a way to measure accurately enough with contracted length?

and (before I answer that) from a later post:-

Quote
Was the measured distance in the MMX mirrors done with the contracted length?

The mirrors contract, as does whatever material is holding them apart from each other. You might want to say that the space between them has contracted in the sense that the gap between the mirrors has been reduced, but the space fabric itself doesn't contract, so there is simply less of it there between the mirrors. But you're asking about measuring this, and if you measure it while co-moving with it, your ruler will be length-contracted to match, so you won't measure any contraction. The only measurements we can make are either from a co-moving frame (in which the apparatus is stationary) which will not show any contraction, or from a different frame which would show contraction if you we could move fast enough past the apparatus and measure it accurately enough (which I don't think we can yet do), and, of course, that measured contraction would not be real if the apparatus was actually stationary, so we can never produce absolute measurements. We can only ever make conditional measurements (e.g. if A then B) where we pick a frame and say things like "if this frame is the absolute frame, then xy has contracted", and because all the measurements we can actually make show no contraction, we're only able to use reasoning to determine that the arms must sometimes be contracted.

Quote
Has the MMX been done that can rotate each distances for orientation without changing their physical distances (Other than suspected length contraction ) with the rotation?

If you mean, can you turn it round without introducing distortions to it, then yes - you can let the planet rotate it for you.

Quote
How do you prove space Aether does not rotate with mass?

You send atomic clocks out and about on space probes and satellites and see how their movement slows down or speeds up - any unexpected change in the speed the fabric of space moves relative to them would show up in the timings.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/06/2017 23:30:26
David;
Would you reconsider your scenario of A and B, with B moving at .866c?

Have you found a fault with it? If so, you'll need to spell out what it is.

Quote
Below the origin, f'= sqrt[.072]=.27
Above the origin, f'= sqrt[13.925]=3.73.

In the second case f' is almost 4.
If f'=4, solving for v gives 15/17= .8824.

This second case is the relevant one, and your diagram fits with mine - the time value 1 on the moving clock occurs at the same height as the value 2 appears on the stationary clock, so that shows that the moving clock is ticking at half the rate of the stationary one. My diagram is different from yours though in one major respect, and that's that the lines you show going from the points labelled "1" at sloping angles taking them to the other planet and reaching them when the local clocks display the time 3.73 are both paths for light travelling from place to place, whereas my diagram shows lines at a slightly steeper angle which represent the paths of rockets moving in one case at 0.99c (the one moving from planet A to planet B) and in the other case at 0.866c (the one moving from planet B to planet A). Those rockets both arrive at their destination when the local clock reads 4 (and the rocket clock says 2).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 15/06/2017 15:48:54
David;
Would you reconsider your scenario of A and B, with B moving at .866c?

Have you found a fault with it? If so, you'll need to spell out what it is.
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.
For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 15/06/2017 19:05:59
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.
For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.

Are you referring to the part of the page where I show diagrams with two space-shuttle-style rockets, first moving apart (in one interactive diagram) and then moving together (in the next diagram)? If so, you must be talking about the bit where I say, "When the crew of rocket A listen to the beeps coming from rocket B, they may hear the beeps coming in at one beep every two seconds. When the crew of rocket B listen to the beeps coming from rocket A though, they too will hear one beep every two seconds. It isn't quite that simple though, because there are awkward Doppler effect complications..."

The one beep every two seconds is what they would hear on average if you combine equal parts of them moving closer together and then moving apart again with the pass made halfway through. The two interactive diagrams then show the way the Doppler effect complications make for different timings between the beeps arriving for the two cases, but it also shows how the rates of arrival of the beeps match up for both rockets against their clocks. I don't actually provide numbers for how many beeps arrive per second of either clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21
David,

    On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity. Considering all forms that measures light are  indirect.

Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on Earth. This is a confirmed fact. Now latitude measurements are simultaneity of relativity only for distance. So on the Earth, latitude measurements allow 90 degree measurements that disregard the forward spin. There is no difference with measurements of spin direction to rotation around the sun. So we are only measuring rotation of the Earth with longitude differences from simultaneity of relativity distance measurements. This would be c+v and c-v for distance measurements. If light actually goes 90 degrees all bets are off for contraction. Measurements of light highly suggests a 90 degree path of the first photon to hit the mirror in the latitude position. This also suggests on the Earth latitude measurements are exactly c+v and c-v for distance measurements of simultaneity of relativity.

This being the case it would be c+v and c-v exactly compensates for distance traveled in any orientation of a clock angle without contraction. The suggestion of a fixed frame of a returned position for light that includes mass will be met with much criticism. But measurements suggest this to be an accurate understanding of the GR SR combination of energy's stable position relative to mass separate from SR that is void of mass. The Earth may carry its own energy aura of dilated energy exchanging energy from the threshold of the aura. This would allow rotation of the Earth not to be affected directly from the Earth rotation around the sun.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 17/06/2017 15:34:03
Hi David,

I'm not sure you saw the last paragraph from my last message (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70299.msg516166#msg516166), so here it is again:
I did see it and intended to reply to it, but every time I attempt to do so I run into the same problem - it just makes my mind go blank, probably because its trying to build upon a number of things that I haven't yet fully got my mind around, and I'm just not ready to go there. There's a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve things moving along in jumps, and I'd rather acquire a complete understanding of that first before abandoning it in favour of something that might turn out to be more correct but which adds a lot of additional complexity. However, illustrating it using diagrams like Иванов has done could make a considerable difference.
Yes, Yvanov has nice diagrams and animations, but he has none to explain inertia (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#3.08), and I find my own explanation easier to understand. It is the only place in his paper where he moves a particle before the other is aware of the motion, and I find it easier to consider that it then has to face doppler effect than to consider that it resists to get out of its potential hole. But as he told me when I tried to discuss with him a few years ago, our two theories are almost the same. At the time, I took for granted that he was right about contraction happening to both arms of the MM interferometer, but your simulation shows that he is wrong, so I'll go through his maths and try to find the flaw. As you say, maybe he is working with the wrong frequency.

Quote from: David
Quote
I'm still having trouble to apply your time dilation analysis to the time shifted motion between my two particles though. Once accelerated, these particles manage to stay on sync even if light takes more time between them, and they use doppler effect to do so. Even if a photon takes more time to travel between them, that photon is redshifted one way and blue shifted the other way, and it is the only information that those particles can use to stay on sync. The time the photon takes is as unavailable to them as it is to us, otherwise two observers could tell which one of them was moving just by looking at their clocks once reunited.
I'm having trouble picturing when these photons set out relative to when which particles are moving, when they arrive, etc., and that's why it would help if it was accompanied by a series of diagrams to show the progress of how the system moves along.
Here we go: (I sent you a PM with the diagram, please quote it in you answer)
(https://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/642753Diagrammereptation.png) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=642753Diagrammereptation.png)
We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. I did not account for the time dilation of particle A since it moves before particle B, but I think we should. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce that doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction. Of course motion is a bit more complicated this way, but we can discard the complicated Higgs, and we can study more closely what happens with motion at the micro scale, which could help us to link Relativity theory to Quantum theory.

Quote from: David
Quote
By the way, if your two observers in your ships can't tell which one is moving, then how could one of them record less time on his clock than the other? Wouldn't it mean that he was the one to travel?
One account of the action claims that one observer is stationary throughout while the other moves away and then moves back, so the one that moved will have slowed clocks and will record less time as having passed. Another account of the action claims that one observer is stationary for part of the time and then moves much faster than the other in order to catch up with him while the other is moving at a constant speed throughout, so in this case the latter has clocks running slow throughout while the former has clocks running faster at first, but then his clocks are slowed much more severely when he travels really fast, and that leads to his clocks recording less time overall.
OK! I got it this time! Sorry, I did not follow the complete reasoning the first times I read it. It works, and apart from braking the cause and effect law, it also works with SR, so I wonder why the physicists on other scientific forums refuse to use it to raise the Twins' paradox. As you say, a theory that contains a paradox is wrong by definition. I saw that your conversation with Peter Donis was erased, and I also saw that the original thread you refer to was erased too, so I'm forced to conclude like you that they need to hide something. I'm still having a hard time to convince myself that time slows down though, I've been thinking the contrary for so long! I'm surprised that it took so little a time to change my mind though. Did you succeed to convince anybody else than me yet? I had nice discussions on Anti-Relativity.com lately, and it suddenly stopped being accessible. The guy that started it died a few years ago, so he probably stopped paying for the url. He was a LET enthusiast too, but he was less convincing than you. Have you tried sciencechatforum.com yet? They treat miscreants like you nicely there too. :0)

P.S.  Here is my conversion to time dilation and length contraction on sciencechatforum.com (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270)
sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 17/06/2017 19:02:01
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.
For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.

The drawings correctly show 3.73 between signals when separating and .27 between signals when closing, for both A and B, when using the relativistic Doppler expressions.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 21:47:19
In the Magic example, you say each observer will detect 1 signal per 2 time units of local time. The graphics show that happens for a relative speed of .6.
For a speed of .886, the frequency is 1 per 3.73.

The drawings correctly show 3.73 between signals when separating and .27 between signals when closing, for both A and B, when using the relativistic Doppler expressions.

I never actually stopped to work out what the values would be, but those sound right - if you add them together and half the answer, you get one beep every two seconds which is what both rockets should work out that they're hearing on average, tying in neatly with what they will expect to hear if they both assume themselves to be stationary while the other rocket moves past them.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 22:50:34
On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.

Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?

Quote
Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level on Earth. This is a confirmed fact.

Shouldn't they tick slower at the equator than the poles for the same altitude? Has that been tested?

Quote
Now latitude measurements are simultaneity of relativity only for distance. So on the Earth, latitude measurements allow 90 degree measurements that disregard the forward spin. There is no difference with measurements of spin direction to rotation around the sun. So we are only measuring rotation of the Earth with longitude differences from simultaneity of relativity distance measurements.

I can't make sense of that.

Quote
This would be c+v and c-v for distance measurements. If light actually goes 90 degrees all bets are off for contraction. Measurements of light highly suggests a 90 degree path of the first photon to hit the mirror in the latitude position. This also suggests on the Earth latitude measurements are exactly c+v and c-v for distance measurements of simultaneity of relativity.

I can't make sense of that either. "If light actually goes 90 degrees..." - I don't know what that's 90 degrees away from, but I can't see what you're getting at anyway. At any given moment with the MMX, the rotation of the Earth is too slow to have any relevance beyond merely adding to or subtracting a little from the straight-line speed of the apparatus through space, and the main thing of interest to us is how the MMX behaves six months apart in time.

Quote
This being the case it would be c+v and c-v exactly compensates for distance traveled in any orientation of a clock angle without contraction. The suggestion of a fixed frame of a returned position for light that includes mass will be met with much criticism. But measurements suggest this to be an accurate understanding of the GR SR combination of energy's stable position relative to mass separate from SR that is void of mass. The Earth may carry its own energy aura of dilated energy exchanging energy from the threshold of the aura. This would allow rotation of the Earth not to be affected directly from the Earth rotation around the sun.

And again I can't make sense of that, but too many things have come out of experiments to show us that length-contraction should happen, so it wouldn't go away even if you could find some kind of ether-drag or aura voodoo to stop it affecting the MMX on Earth. We send space probes out to the planets and they don't show up any atomic clocks slowing or speeding up as they move from one bubble of ether-drag to another.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 18/06/2017 01:01:39
Here we go: (I sent you a PM with the diagram, please quote it in you answer)

It just comes out blank. Maybe you could get it to me via Facebook and I can then try attaching it to a post here. Once I've seen the diagram, I might then be able to follow the description.

Quote
OK! I got it this time! Sorry, I did not follow the complete reasoning the first times I read it. It works, and apart from braking the cause and effect law, it also works with SR, so I wonder why the physicists on other scientific forums refuse to use it to raise the Twins' paradox. As you say, a theory that contains a paradox is wrong by definition.

The twins' paradox isn't really a paradox though as it makes full sense for any frame of reference you choose to analyse it from. It's the contradictions in the accounts of events from different frames of reference that break any theory that claims they're all frames are equally valid because the accounts cannot all be true, and if one account is more true than all the others, that is not an equality of validity for all frames.

Quote
I saw that your conversation with Peter Donis was erased,

That was all in PMs (so it was never on view to the public) - it may still exist there for all I know - it certainly generated a lot of interest judging by all the people being invited to join in, and I was able to capture all the action and mugshots. It's a nice prize to have, and the time will come when they all wish they'd had the courage to call it differently instead of conforming to the required beliefs of what is actually a religion.

Quote
and I also saw that the original thread you refer to was erased too, so I'm forced to conclude like you that they need to hide something.

They erase within minutes anything that goes against the clergy, and they've banned a lot of professional physicists too. In doing so, they make a mockery of science, but that'll just make it all the more fun when the whole thing unravels for them after AGI takes over the show and starts to call all the shots. They will never be allowed to forget how much they have abused the people who have rightly objected to their disproven assertions.

Quote
I'm still having a hard time to convince myself that time slows down though, I've been thinking the contrary for so long! I'm surprised that it took so little a time to change my mind though.

But I don't agree that time slows down - I only say that moving clocks slow down, and the functionality of anything that can serve as a clock, such as a computer, a cell, an atom, etc. Time itself runs at a constant rate, and we can certainly see that the light in a light clock is not moving through space any slower when the light clock is moving through space - the light continues to race through the space fabric at full speed, and given that that is a fundamental component of the light clock, what sense does it make to say that time has slowed for the clock when that component is not slowed at all? All we have is an apparent slowing of time for objects that move fast through space or sit in a gravity well due to their slowed cycles, but that apparent slowing is all caused by slowed functionality due to greater communication distances or by light being slowed in the presence of a lot of mass.

Quote
Did you succeed to convince anybody else than me yet?

Most people who shift position from the SR side seem to move to the point where they sit on the fence rather than actually changing sides, but that's a step in the right direction.

Quote
I had nice discussions on Anti-Relativity.com lately, and it suddenly stopped being accessible.

How recently did you register there? I discovered it quite a few years ago but couldn't register, which was a pity because there were quite a few things there that I wanted to comment on to stop people wasting their time flogging dead horses where they thought they'd worked out how to measure the one-way speed of light and had made fundamental errors. All my attempts at registering failed, but via another forum I eventually managed to trigger a member into posting an explanation - the person behind the forum had stopped communicating with them and no one else knew the passwords for taking over control, so they couldn't do anything. It was a ship sailing on without a captain, but if he's died, he must have paid for a lot of years of webhosting up front because the money still doesn't appear to have run out - the forum's still up.

Quote
Have you tried sciencechatforum.com yet? They treat miscreants like you nicely there too. :0)

I'm not greatly keen to open up new fronts as it just eats a lot of time for no real gain - realistically, nothing's going to change until we have AGI systems running on all computers so that millions of AGI users can join every science forum and outgun the clergy there. AGI will soon be running on the clergy's own machines too, so they won't even be able to type any of their nonsense in any more without being firmly told that they're in direct conflict with reason whenever they make unacceptable assertions about the rightness of disproven theories. This would also help all the people questioning the science (or trying to get their head around it) if they could talk it through with AGI first instead of with a human so that they don't get misled by other humans who often don't understand the science that they imagine they're well placed to teach - most of the problems that keep coming up seem to result from people filling their heads with incorrect science which they then have enormous difficulty unlearning.

Quote
P.S.  Here is my conversion to time dilation and length contraction on sciencechatforum.com (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270)
sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=323270#p323270

Your diagram doesn't appear for me there either - there's just a tiny rectangle with "image" written in it. Perhaps my computer's blocking images that other people can see?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/06/2017 18:26:07
Maybe you could get it to me via Facebook and I can then try attaching it to a post here. Once I've seen the diagram, I might then be able to follow the description.
I sent it through an email @magicschoolbook.com . I used another computer to open the file at sciencechat and it worked, so the problem might indeed be with your computer, but I can't see what might be going wrong with it.

Quote from: David
Quote
I saw that your conversation with Peter Donis was erased,
That was all in PMs (so it was never on view to the public) - it may still exist there for all I know - it certainly generated a lot of interest judging by all the people being invited to join in, and I was able to capture all the action and mugshots. It's a nice prize to have, and the time will come when they all wish they'd had the courage to call it differently instead of conforming to the required beliefs of what is actually a religion.
We can't blame people to be religious. What we get as a child is there for good. Evolution is a slow process, even for ideas. My theory on mass helps me to understand our own resistance to change. It is completely subconscious, impossible to detect except indirectly, when people point to our lack of willing for instance, which usually produces a bad feeling instead of a change in our ideas. I promised myself never to insult people, but when I feel insulted repeatedly, it's hard to stay cool. I usually get sarcastic when it happens, which is a kind of compromise. I try to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. I hide my feelings under the rug a bit.

Quote
They erase within minutes anything that goes against the clergy, and they've banned a lot of professional physicists too. In doing so, they make a mockery of science, but that'll just make it all the more fun when the whole thing unravels for them after AGI takes over the show and starts to call all the shots. They will never be allowed to forget how much they have abused the people who have rightly objected to their disproven assertions.
I think that's what it looks from our side, and that they get the same feeling from their side. We can never force a torturer to admit he was wrong, because it is not the feeling he gets when he tortures.

Quote
But I don't agree that time slows down - I only say that moving clocks slow down, and the functionality of anything that can serve as a clock, such as a computer, a cell, an atom, etc. Time itself runs at a constant rate, and we can certainly see that the light in a light clock is not moving through space any slower when the light clock is moving through space - the light continues to race through the space fabric at full speed, and given that that is a fundamental component of the light clock, what sense does it make to say that time has slowed for the clock when that component is not slowed at all? All we have is an apparent slowing of time for objects that move fast through space or sit in a gravity well due to their slowed cycles, but that apparent slowing is all caused by slowed functionality due to greater communication distances or by light being slowed in the presence of a lot of mass.
I understand that you attribute time to the distance light travels, as we do for the lightyear. This might be useful if that distance was constant, but your MMx simulation shows that it travels more distance one way than the other, so what would be the true time? Maybe you mean the distance traveled in aether, but then there would be no way to detect the true time, and if there is no way for us, my theory shows that there would be no way for atoms either, so this kind of time would be useless too. Besides, if we assimilate time to aging, to me, the fact that one of the twins gets younger means that his time has slowed down. Visibly, I do not understand yet what you exactly mean.

Quote from: David
Quote
Did you succeed to convince anybody else than me yet?
Most people who shift position from the SR side seem to move to the point where they sit on the fence rather than actually changing sides, but that's a step in the right direction.
Even atoms resist to change their ideas, and they have no idea that they are doing so either! :0)

Quote from: David
Quote
I had nice discussions on Anti-Relativity.com lately, and it suddenly stopped being accessible.
How recently did you register there? .... the forum's still up.
You're right, the forum is back online. I registered six months ago. I can try to register you with your name and give you the password after if you wish.

Quote
I'm not greatly keen to open up new fronts as it just eats a lot of time for no real gain - realistically, nothing's going to change until we have AGI systems running on all computers so that millions of AGI users can join every science forum and outgun the clergy there. AGI will soon be running on the clergy's own machines too, so they won't even be able to type any of their nonsense in any more without being firmly told that they're in direct conflict with reason whenever they make unacceptable assertions about the rightness of disproven theories. This would also help all the people questioning the science (or trying to get their head around it) if they could talk it through with AGI first instead of with a human so that they don't get misled by other humans who often don't understand the science that they imagine they're well placed to teach - most of the problems that keep coming up seem to result from people filling their heads with incorrect science which they then have enormous difficulty unlearning.
That's exactly what resistance is about, and I can see no way to avoid it. To me, resistance can only be surmounted by hazard, the same way evolution of species can only happen if mutations are random. This idea suggests me that atoms cannot be accelerated without hazard participating to the process either, so the hazard that we experiment at the atoms' scale might be due to atoms trying all the possibilities their components offer to find the speed or the direction they are forced to take at our scale.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 18/06/2017 20:11:07
David,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0501034

QuoteClocks tick at the same rate at sea level on Earth. This is a confirmed fact.Shouldn't they tick slower at the equator than the poles for the same altitude? Has that been tested?
We are not talking about altitude. We are referencing sea level on earth. You can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances. Once you understand this you might have a better understanding of what I am describing.

Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?
Einstein and relativity.

QuoteThis would be c+v and c-v for distance measurements. If light actually goes 90 degrees all bets are off for contraction. Measurements of light highly suggests a 90 degree path of the first photon to hit the mirror in the latitude position. This also suggests on the Earth latitude measurements are exactly c+v and c-v for distance measurements of simultaneity of relativity.I can't make sense of that either. "If light actually goes 90 degrees..." - I don't know what that's 90 degrees away from, but I can't see what you're getting at anyway. At any given moment with the MMX, the rotation of the Earth is too slow to have any relevance beyond merely adding to or subtracting a little from the straight-line speed of the apparatus through space, and the main thing of interest to us is how the MMX behaves six months apart in time.
It does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.

I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.

QuoteNow latitude measurements are simultaneity of relativity only for distance. So on the Earth, latitude measurements allow 90 degree measurements that disregard the forward spin. There is no difference with measurements of spin direction to rotation around the sun. So we are only measuring rotation of the Earth with longitude differences from simultaneity of relativity distance measurements.I can't make sense of that.

My communication skills are poor. North and south directions do not add or subtract distances while East to West decreases distance for light while West to East increases distance light has to travel due to light being independent of the source. The distances exactly correct for each other to the same source on Earth.


QuoteThis being the case it would be c+v and c-v exactly compensates for distance traveled in any orientation of a clock angle without contraction. The suggestion of a fixed frame of a returned position for light that includes mass will be met with much criticism. But measurements suggest this to be an accurate understanding of the GR SR combination of energy's stable position relative to mass separate from SR that is void of mass. The Earth may carry its own energy aura of dilated energy exchanging energy from the threshold of the aura. This would allow rotation of the Earth not to be affected directly from the Earth rotation around the sun.And again I can't make sense of that, but too many things have come out of experiments to show us that length-contraction should happen, so it wouldn't go away even if you could find some kind of ether-drag or aura voodoo to stop it affecting the MMX on Earth. We send space probes out to the planets and they don't show up any atomic clocks slowing or speeding up as they move from one bubble of ether-drag to another

I am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo. Length contraction for light distance traveled is correct. That is part of relativity. It is not necessarily the physical distance that is contracted when you understand the possibility of light distances using atomic clocks and relativity locally.

Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant. In the North South then South North directions are equal distances so the two way speed of light always auto corrects the SoP in both directions. North South does not need auto correction because there is no change in distance with either direction.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/06/2017 00:45:38
Hi Raymond,

I've got your diagram from the email, so here it is along with the text:-

"Here is the diagram about contraction. The acceleration stops at t4 for A and at t5 for B, so the contraction and the speed is stable from t5 to t7, but it is still doppler effect that drives the atoms, and we can imagine that this effect is also producing the motion of their components, providing they are bonded and no energy is lost during the process. If any light succeeds to escape from the components, it has to produce the bonding between the atoms, and if it escapes from the atoms, it has to produce gravity. When we accelerate A, it produces doppler effect on the light issued from B, so it resists to move towards B, and its components do the same thing with regard to one another, so if we add all those resistances, we get the whole mass of the atom. This explains why particles get lighter when they bond, or why mass is equivalent to energy, or the relation between light energy and kinetic energy."

It's late here, so I'll just post this now so that other people can study it too, and I'll get back to it tomorrow.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 19/06/2017 11:22:45


In the standard model there should be no Doppler at all. There needs to be resistance to a medium for a Doppler affect.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 01:00:42
I understand that you attribute time to the distance light travels, as we do for the lightyear. This might be useful if that distance was constant, but your MMx simulation shows that it travels more distance one way than the other, so what would be the true time? Maybe you mean the distance traveled in aether, but then there would be no way to detect the true time, and if there is no way for us, my theory shows that there would be no way for atoms either, so this kind of time would be useless too. Besides, if we assimilate time to aging, to me, the fact that one of the twins gets younger means that his time has slowed down. Visibly, I do not understand yet what you exactly mean.

Our inability to measure absolute time doesn't render it useless - it is a key part of the mechanism by which the universe functions and the universe cannot function without it. Our inability to pin it down and point at a clock which ticks out absolute time doesn't make anything useless - it simply means we can't trust any clock to do anything other than measure an apparent time. The universe operates using a time that runs at the same rate everywhere. Computer simulations do the same, even when they pretend to do SR or GR - they are still fully dependent on a Newtonian time ticking away universally because they can't function without it, although they can obfuscate it by repeatedly switching which frame is tied to that Newtonian time.

Quote
I registered six months ago. I can try to register you with your name and give you the password after if you wish.

I'm in now, although I couldn't use my own name because someone has already registered every possible way of writing it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 02:07:45
We are not talking about altitude. We are referencing sea level on earth.

Yes, but a clock at sea level at the equator is moving through space more quickly on average than a clock at sea level at the north pole, so the former should tick more slowly unless there's some complication I don't know about which cancels out the difference, which is why I commented on that - if they do tick at the same rate as each other, there must be some factor that I haven't taken into account and I want to know more about it.

Quote
You can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances.

That is not possible.

Quote
Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?
Einstein and relativity.

Incompetent. No method has been found to measure the speed of light in one direction with anything.

Quote
It does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.

I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.

That's gone too weird for me.

Quote
I am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo.

That wasn't what I called voodoo - it's the bit about an aura which I had an issue with because you're trying to do something that would be ruled out in the same way as aether drag. When space probes move from planet to planet they don't find boundaries between "auras".

Quote
Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.

Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/06/2017 12:03:55
Yes, but a clock at sea level at the equator is moving through space more quickly on average than a clock at sea level at the north pole, so the former should tick more slowly unless there's some complication I don't know about which cancels out the difference, which is why I commented on that - if they do tick at the same rate as each other, there must be some factor that I haven't taken into account and I want to know more about it.

Yes You are not taking into account the bulge at the equator and the indentation at the poles for where sea level resides. There is a SR GR equivalence sea level balances.


QuoteYou can measure one way distances with atomic clocks which relate to light distances.That is not possible.

I would suggest you use the term not probable rather than not possible. Atomic clocks can measure distance on the Earth to prove relativity. Atomic clocks measure rotation of the earths longitude vs. latitude using simultaneity of relativity very well. Atomic clocks accurately measure distances light travels. If c is constant than atomic clocks can measure distance. Einstein thought so. I'm going to side with his understanding.


QuoteQuote from: David Cooper on 17/06/2017 22:50:34Quote from: GoC on 17/06/2017 13:46:21On Earth we might not be understanding light path correctly. It has been accepted that an atomic clock can measure the one way distance of light using simultaneity of relativity.Who has accepted that and on what basis have they done so?Einstein and relativity.Incompetent. No method has been found to measure the speed of light in one direction with anything.

They used atomic clocks in airplanes to prove relativity. The Canadians used a van with 7 atomic clocks to prove relativity driving from NY to SF and registered a 14 ns difference in line with the rotation of the Earth c-v.

QuoteIt does not matter if we rotate with the direction of the Earth or against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. So the dilation of mass on the Earth must Trump spacetime motion and carry the aura of dilated spacetime rotation with the Earth for local measurements.I look at it from a time energy perspective where energy c is the motion of time. Different from your understanding. You believe energy is part of and bound up in mass. I consider energy is of space and not mass.That's gone too weird for me.

Being self aware seems weird to me the rest is just mechanics.


QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?

No, but of what is it a contraction? GR has dilation (expansion) SR has a distance change in energy. You contract energy traveling against the rotation of the Earth. Clocks react to velocity of rotation (longitude) but not to Latitude.
Light is independent of the source but latitude is a fixed position North to South for tick rate other than simultaneity of relativity change with distance. The two way distance for east and west exactly correct distance light travels on the Earth. Local is different than non local slightly.
I meant to say the forward and back /2 is the same. One way distance measured by light is not but the physical distance remains the same.

QuoteI am sorry you believe clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level is voodoo.That wasn't what I called voodoo - it's the bit about an aura which I had an issue with because you're trying to do something that would be ruled out in the same way as aether drag. When space probes move from planet to planet they don't find boundaries between "auras".

I use aura to describe dilation threshold of the inverse square of the distance. We view this in galaxies as lensing. Aura is not in the spiritual sense when used by me. There is the energy of space being dilated by mass and we view that threshold between dilated space and space without mass around galaxies. All mass carry's its own dilation of lower energy density. Gravity is the attraction to a lower energy density in your local environment. Your size determines your local environment by the inverse square of the distance you affect.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: puppypower on 20/06/2017 13:05:36
One conceptual problem with explaining and proving relativity with clocks, are clocks do not simulate time in a way that is consistent with the passage of time. Time is mono-directional; always increases to the future. Whereas clocks cycle and repeat. Cycle and repeat is more like a 2-D wave, whereas time moves more like a 1-D line. Clocks add a second dimension to time that is not consistent with the passage of time. Clock time is more consistent with a measure of energy, which is a 2-D wave. Changes in energy, can impact the performance of clocks.

The reason we have clocks, to make us more efficient with our time. It is about regulating our time in a way that allows us to be more efficient with our cultural and individual energy. This makes money and resources. We allot so much energy, for various tasks, over the day. As the clock repeats, we repeat this process. When you go in vacation, and leave the clock at home, energy output is not as repeatable. Time may appear to speed up when you have fun. And you may need a vacation from vacation due to too much energy expended.

The passage of time is closer to the concept of entropy. A system left to its own accord, will increase entropy over time; second law. Like time, entropy does not cycle and repeat. Energy is 2-D; wavelength and frequency and will cycle and repeat.

An example of an entropy clock would be the dead fish clock. This clock moves forward in time and will not cycle since we cannot un-stink the dead fish. We can speed up or slow the dead fish clock, with heat energy or refrigeration. This is another form of energy, that regulates the rate of entropy. I would conclude the mechanics of relativity is energy. SR has kinetic energy, while GR has mass energy. Clock time misrepresents the nature of time and is therefore something else altogether.

As an analogy, say we say have a tradition that says walking can be simulated by swimming. Swimming is a different motion than walking, and therefore swimming does not accurately simulate the mechanics of walking. You need both arm and leg propulsion to swim; 2-D, whereas walking is mostly legs; 1-D.  But since this is the tradition, you need to use that premise and then reason from there when building the robot. If you follow the traditions, to get along, something never makes sense, but one is required to accept it, memorize and repeat. We end up with robots walking while grabbing, air with their arms and curling their spine, which seems unnatural.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 20/06/2017 17:40:16
Davod Cooper #295
Quote
I never actually stopped to work out what the values would be, but those sound right - if you add them together and half the answer, you get one beep every two seconds which is what both rockets should work out that they're hearing on average, tying in neatly with what they will expect to hear if they both assume themselves to be stationary while the other rocket moves past them.

Anaut B leaves A at .866c, performs a more realistic reversal from Bt .5 to 1.5.. and returns at .866c. Inspection reveals units of time detected:
A detects 1 in 3..37, then 1 in .63, an average of 2 in 4.
B detects .63 in 1, then 3.37 in 1, an average of 4 in 2.
The detection rates are reciprocal but not equal.

https://app.box.com/s/wmxpgmv7u36z7epio09k8royqbnxvkbv
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 20/06/2017 17:44:26
Davod Cooper #297

Quote
But I don't agree that time slows down - I only say that moving clocks slow down, and the functionality of anything that can serve as a clock, such as a computer, a cell, an atom, etc. Time itself runs at a constant rate, and we can certainly see that the light in a light clock is not moving through space any slower when the light clock is moving through space - the light continues to race through the space fabric at full speed, and given that that is a fundamental component of the light clock, what sense does it make to say that time has slowed for the clock when that component is not slowed at all? All we have is an apparent slowing of time for objects that move fast through space or sit in a gravity well due to their slowed cycles, but that apparent slowing is all caused by slowed functionality due to greater communication distances or by light being slowed in the presence of a lot of mass

A clock is a process, like biology, or growth rings of a tree,...etc. Inside the light clock, the speed of light relative to the clock is < c and that is by definition 'time'.. If observer  perception (a process) is altered by motion, like the clock, he is not aware of the slowing clock rate, just as his short ruler does not reveal a change in his short spaceship. If all processes slow by the same proportion, the rules of physical behavior remain constant, and apply anywhere for inertial motion. Perception is that of a common time, therefore a universal time is irrelevant. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 20:53:00
Yes You are not taking into account the bulge at the equator and the indentation at the poles for where sea level resides. There is a SR GR equivalence sea level balances.

I did consider that, but thought it unlikely that it should always cancel out the speed effect - having now checked though, I've found lots of stuff stating that it does cancel it out in all cases, so thanks for drawing my attention to this.

I would suggest you use the term not probable rather than not possible.

It is not possible using any method that we currently know of.

Quote
Atomic clocks can measure distance on the Earth to prove relativity. Atomic clocks measure rotation of the earths longitude vs. latitude using simultaneity of relativity very well. Atomic clocks accurately measure distances light travels. If c is constant than atomic clocks can measure distance. Einstein thought so. I'm going to side with his understanding.

If the one-way speed of light could be measured, we would be able to identify a preferred frame of reference.

Quote
They used atomic clocks in airplanes to prove relativity. The Canadians used a van with 7 atomic clocks to prove relativity driving from NY to SF and registered a 14 ns difference in line with the rotation of the Earth c-v.

That is not a one-way measurement the speed of light - proving relativity merely proves that relativity works, but it doesn't mean that it has to be Einstein's relativity as LET makes the same predictions and does not require the speed of light to be the same in all directions relative to any object.

Quote
Quote
Say you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.
Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?

No, but of what is it a contraction?

If it's 14ft less in one direction, how can the light distances be the same?

Quote
I meant to say the forward and back /2 is the same. One way distance measured by light is not but the physical distance remains the same.

Right, so the average of two distances is the same as itself.

Quote
I use aura to describe dilation threshold of the inverse square of the distance. We view this in galaxies as lensing. Aura is not in the spiritual sense when used by me.

I didn't think you meant it in any spiritual sense, but I couldn't work out what you did mean by it. Thanks for clearing that up. I can't see how that gives you a mechanism to avoid length-contraction.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 21:05:58
Anaut B leaves A at .866c, performs a more realistic reversal from Bt .5 to 1.5.. and returns at .866c. Inspection reveals units of time detected:
A detects 1 in 3..37, then 1 in .63, an average of 2 in 4.
B detects .63 in 1, then 3.37 in 1, an average of 4 in 2.
The detection rates are reciprocal but not equal.

That's a different case - I was dealing with two rockets passing each other at 0.86c relative to each other and not turning round at all. If you average out the beeps they receive from the other rocket over equal parts of the time before and after the point when they pass each other, they both hear one beep every two seconds by their clock.

In the later thought experiment on my relativity page where I have two planets passing each other and two rockets, I don't discuss beeps being sent between them and make no claims about the rate at which any beeps would be detected.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2017 21:16:26
A clock is a process, like biology, or growth rings of a tree,...etc. Inside the light clock, the speed of light relative to the clock is < c and that is by definition 'time'..

I suspect you meant "=" rather than "<". Whatever the case though, clocks can never all the time that is actually passing - they are measuring some of the passage of time, but they miss some of it, and can miss most or all of it depending on where you place them and how fast they're moving.

Quote
If observer  perception (a process) is altered by motion, like the clock, he is not aware of the slowing clock rate, just as his short ruler does not reveal a change in his short spaceship. If all processes slow by the same proportion, the rules of physical behavior remain constant, and apply anywhere for inertial motion. Perception is that of a common time, therefore a universal time is irrelevant.

Universal time is not only relevant, but essential for the functionality of the universe. The inability to pin it down from within the universe doesn't negate its vital role. You can program a virtual world in which a universal time is key to the running of events but where again it is impossible to pin it down from within the virtual world, and you cannot run the virtual world without that universal time. The universe depends on universal time for the same reason - it cannot function without it.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 20/06/2017 22:00:21
If the one-way speed of light could be measured, we would be able to identify a preferred frame of reference

We can measure the one way speed of light by distance with an atomic clock assuming c is constant. If we do not assume that then we reject relativity. But that does not prove a preferred frame to measure the universe. Just locally on Earth by atomic clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level.


That is not a one-way measurement the speed of light - proving relativity merely proves that relativity works, but it doesn't mean that it has to be Einstein's relativity as LET makes the same predictions and does not require the speed of light to be the same in all directions relative to any object.
But the speed of light is the same in all directions of mass less space. What we measure is an issue with the formulas used. All measurements are indirect measurements based on timed events where time has no fixed value. Time and distance are relative but not fixed. Light is relative at sea level with a fixed tick rate of time and distance for light in the North and South directions on Earth. Not fixed in the East and West directions.

Quote from: David Cooper on Today at 02:07:45QuoteSay you were on the moon and could watch light travel from NY to SF and back again. The light traveling to SF from NY takes 14 ns less or roughly 14 feet less than SF to NY. The forward and backward light distances are the same and light is constant.Am I wrong to think that's a contradiction?No, but of what is it a contraction?If it's 14ft less in one direction, how can the light distances be the same?

I miss spoke and meant the physical distance remained the same but the light distances were not the same. Light is contracted not the physical object. The measurement of light cannot contract a physical object but light itself can be manipulated.
I can't see how that gives you a mechanism to avoid length-contraction.
The premise of contracted was wrong in the first place because of the local North South being a fixed position for the clock tick rate. You may not have understood the full ramifications of that. Perpendicular on Earth could be real. That would negate velocity as a different angle (just on a spinning or non spinning planet of course). Outside of the Earth light clocks might not tick at the same rate.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 20/06/2017 22:32:26
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)
I think I succeeded to insert time dilation in my diagram: whenever contraction occurs, we can consider that time dilation occurs too, which is when acceleration occurs.  While A is accelerated, its components are accelerated millions of times, and at each time, they undergo a small contraction and a small dilation, which are transferred to B progressively by means of its own components' accelerations, so at the end of the acceleration, when B's components make their last acceleration, the dilation A and B suffer is the same, and it thus has no effect on their future motion with regard to one another since we can't detect dilation if we are in the same frame as the source.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 21/06/2017 11:51:37
 Le Repteux,

   Lorentz nor Einstein knew clocks tick at the same rate at sea level. Lorentz based his conclusions on a false belief about the Aether's qualities. A fixed tick rate at sea level creates a fixed position in space where perpendicular and exact light distances for east and west return to the same position in space because the space dilation energy potential is being carried by the Earth. So contraction may not be a factor after all. Consider the implications of tick rate being the same all over the Earth at sea level. North and South have a fixed point for light. If light is waves on energy and energy rotates with the body (fixed tick rate) its just a change in speed to a fixed point in space locally. The fixed point is the latitude. Doppler would be two different energy dilation's. The one in space without mass and the one with mass. The aura of different energy dilations changes the angle of light as a convex lens would with the Doppler. Energy might rotate with planets locally, solar systems locally and galaxies locally by volume. Might be the universe we view is also rotating. That would create a red shift for every galaxy without expansion or a BB.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: puppypower on 21/06/2017 13:19:35
Consider this extrapolated example of Special Relativity. We have two rockets in space approaching each other with relative velocity V. Each rocket will see the other moving at V. Each does their time dilation calculations and clock experiments, based on this velocity.

The first rocket has mass M and the second rocket has mass 2M. Instead of letting the rockets pass, in this experiment, I am going to collide them head on. They are both unmanned so nobody gets hurt.

If the first rocket was moving at velocity V and the second was stationary, the total system kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. If the second rocket was moving and the first was stationary, the total kinetic energy is MV2. If each was moving at a fraction of the total relative velocity, the total system energy will be in the middle somewhere. We cannot tell the system energy from relative velocity. We will not know this energy, until after the collision; based on how the rockets are destroyed. Once we know the energy, our initial assumption of no preferred reference and relative velocity can be misleading. All the calculation might turn out to be an illusion.

The way Special Relativity is usually applied, in examples, specifies velocity, but does not specific the mass. It is usually an unwritten assumption to assume both rockets have the same mass; twins. This special case may work in terns of consistent results, but in hard relative, velocity does not always allow us to do a proper energy balance, since the universe is not made up of twins.

The result is we often add or take away energy. This unknown energy difference, due to the assumption of no preferred reference; no ground state, require and/or causes additional assumption which may not be real. This practical problem with the application of SR, is why Einstein included the relativistic mass term, which is always left out. The relativistic mass define system energy, which then defines the changes in space and time.

I my opinion, dark energy and dark matter is an artifact of not being able to measure relativistic mass, directly. We sort of assume the rocket with M is moving at V. However, other observations seem to imply more energy like rocket 2M is moving. We need to add more energy, so we add dark energy, but we don't change the original first rocket is moving assumption.

I interpret the mechanics of relativity as explaining how it works. In the case of two rockets, once we know the collision, we know the energy and only then absolute velocities appear. Velocity should never come first, or else it can lead to illusions in time and space since you can;t close an energy balance.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 14:54:07
One last attempt to help you see the error in your ways.


A tick of a clock is an ''illusion'', it is an invention of measurement to measure time.  The tick means nothing, it is not important.  If the distance of the tick is constant and the speed of tick is constant, time measured remains constant.  If the distance of the tick is a variate, time measured will be a variate, however it means absolutely nothing.
Why the clock is ticking , time passes at the same rate for the tick that is constant or the tick that is variate.
You are making mountains of mole hills and trying to glamour something into meaning something it is not. 

I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 14:59:08
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)
I think I succeeded to insert time dilation in my diagram: whenever contraction occurs, we can consider that time dilation occurs too, which is when acceleration occurs.  While A is accelerated, its components are accelerated millions of times, and at each time, they undergo a small contraction and a small dilation, which are transferred to B progressively by means of its own components' accelerations, so at the end of the acceleration, when B's components make their last acceleration, the dilation A and B suffer is the same, and it thus has no effect on their future motion with regard to one another since we can't detect dilation if we are in the same frame as the source.

You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 15:03:35
I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.
The way I see it, intelligence would be due to randomness happening in our brains for us to be able to cope with changes happening in our environment, so if I am right, you're completely wrong: we are not relatively stupid, we are absolutely stupid! :0)
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 15:09:06
I am going to say it outright now, the world is relatively stupid.
The way I see it, intelligence would be due to randomness happening in our brains for us to be able to cope with changes happening in our environment, so if I am right, you're completely wrong: we are not relatively stupid, we are absolutely stupid! :0)

Well either way the final result would be stupid. I do not pretend to know where thoughts come from, my thoughts seemingly just pop into my head by observing things and then asking myself about them things.
The problem when explaining time dilation (timing dilation) in the train carriage, outside of the carriage , light travels normally and synchronous.
So if you can imagine the carriage travelling to the Sun from Earth, no matter what happens inside the carriage the light travelling outside the carriage from the sun to earth and vice versus is always synchronous.
The train carriage is a ''parlour trick'' that as created a subjective ''illusion''.
  If you like the carriage is a light clock travelling within a light clock.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 15:14:15
You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?
I use the definition of time dilation that says light would take more time between my two atoms if they were moving through aether, of course the atoms need a way to count the tics that I didn't find yet, so I'm still looking for some.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 15:19:37
You have not inserted time dilation into anything, there is no such thing as a time dilation, perhaps you mean a timing difference?
I use the definition of time dilation that says light would take more time between my two atoms if they were moving through aether, of course the atoms need a way to count the tics that I didn't find yet, so I'm still looking for some.


That is a good definition but would be still incorrect to say a time dilation, it is the mechanics of timing, time itself has no mechanics as such.

I have drawn a diagram to show timing relativity.

* dx2.jpg (61.22 kB . 1895x916 - viewed 1854 times)



Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 15:29:48
I will fix it for you all,

* td.jpg (402.58 kB . 1920x1080 - viewed 1839 times)

That is all ''you'' have to do .  Change the title to timing dilation and that gets rid of most of the  possible relativity arguments.

Einstein used the term time dilation ambiguously, he meant timing.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 15:48:31
I have drawn a diagram to show timing relativity.
Time is made of cyclic motions. We measure long ones out of small ones. Long ones vary more than small ones, so small ones stay precise for a longer period, that's why atomic clocks are more precise. My two atoms use the light they emit to stay synchronized, and they succeed to do so because their components do the same thing. The clock from their components is a billion times more precise than the clock they make, that's how they can keep their inertial motion perfectly constant, at least from our viewpoint. If time dilation happens to one of them, it happens to the other too, so they don't get out of sync because of that, and their motion stays constant. Things need to have a use, and time dilation too. For the moment, I can't see any use for it at the atom's scale, and I am still not sure there is one at our scale. I still resist to the idea that one of the twins gets younger.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 15:56:18
I have drawn a diagram to show timing relativity.
Time is made of cyclic motions. We measure long ones out of small ones. Long ones vary more than small ones, so small ones stay precise for a longer period, that's why atomic clocks are more precise. My two atoms use the light they emit to stay synchronized, and they succeed to do so because their components do the same thing. The clock from their components is a billion times more precise than the clock they make, that's how they can keep their inertial motion perfectly constant, at least from our viewpoint. If time dilation happens to one of them, it happens to the other too, so they don't get out of sync because of that, and their motion stays constant. Things need to have a use, and time dilation too. For the moment, I can't see any use for it at the atom's scale, and I am still not sure there is one at our scale. I still resist to the idea that one of the twins gets younger.


No, time is not made of anything, time is just a word that we use to measure the experience of existence.  Time as a physical thing does not exist, time is the perception and memory of the experience of existing.
What you are referring to is the rate of change in any of the 4 states of matter, the rate of change in entropy. 
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 16:10:05
I only refer to my diagram. It shows how two atoms would act to stay synchronized while being accelerated. If we try to accelerate the left one, it resists to move to stay synchronized with the right one, and that resistance represents mass. If we stop accelerating it, the doppler effect accumulated between the two atoms produces their constant motion until another acceleration happens, and that constant motion represents inertial motion. Without them emitting light towards one another, they could not stay synchronized and there could be no motion at our scale. They do not use clocks to do so, they use their own light frequency, so they do not have to count the tics. Their frequency is stable because it is made of the frequency of their own components, which is much more stable than theirs.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 16:26:21
I only refer to my diagram. It shows how two atoms would act to stay synchronized while being accelerated. If we try to accelerate the left one, it resists to move to stay synchronized with the right one, and that resistance represents mass. If we stop accelerating it, the doppler effect accumulated between the two atoms produces their constant motion until another acceleration happens, and that constant motion represents inertial motion. Without them emitting light towards one another, they could not stay synchronized and there could be no motion at our scale. They do not use clocks to do so, they use their own light frequency, so they do not have to count the tics.
But that is not how two atoms act to remain synchronised.  Let me explain which is probably a little deeper than you have considered before.

let us have Atom (A) which is going to change in entropy (S) by releasing photon (hf) into the entropy  of space towards Atom (B) which is in a constant state of quantum fluctuation of (S).  When the (hf) arrives at (B) , the (S) of (B) is changed by the (hf).
Vice versus (hf) makes the return trip to (A) . 

To remain synchronous in exchange , dx between (A) and (B) must remain constant and the rate of change of (S) must also remain constant from the surrounding environment.

Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 16:45:12
You may not have read yet how I describe the motion between my two atoms, so here it is again:

We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce that doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction. Of course motion is a bit more complicated this way, but we can discard the complicated Higgs, and we can study more closely what happens with motion at the micro scale, which could help us to link Relativity theory to Quantum theory.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)

As you can see, I use only immediately observable things, and you use entropy, which is not immediately observable, at least for an atom.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 16:48:56
You may not have read yet how I describe the motion between my two atoms, so here it is again:

We have two atoms A and B that are part of the same molecule. The time interval represents the time the information takes between the two atoms at t0. We accelerate A for a while and observe what happens to the system from t0 to t7. The blue arrows represent the blueshifted information that travels from A to B, and the red arrows represent the redshifted information that travels from B to A. The acceleration of A begins at t0 and ends at t4, so because of the time gap, the acceleration of B begins at t1 and ends at t5. After t5, the two atoms travel at the same speed, but we can easily see that the distance between them has contracted, and we can follow its progression during the acceleration. At that moment, the information on the future speed of each atom with regard to aether is situated between them in the form of doppler effect. The main idea is that, without doppler effect, there would be no motion between bonded particles, so there would be no motion either at our scale. I insist on the fact that we have to exert a force to introduce that doppler effect between them, and that this force represents mass. So with the same principle, we explain mass, motion and contraction. Of course motion is a bit more complicated this way, but we can discard the complicated Higgs, and we can study more closely what happens with motion at the micro scale, which could help us to link Relativity theory to Quantum theory.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70299.0;attach=23524;image)

As you can see, I use only immediately observable things, and you use entropy, which is not immediately observable, at least for an atom.
  You are going left to right and right to left, that is not even how light behaves or works.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 17:05:57
The two atoms emit their own light at their own frequency, and they have to move so that the light from the other atom looks as if it had the same frequency as theirs. If the left atom has moved towards the right one before its light had the time to reach the right one, that right one will move away from the left one after a while, and it will do so also before its light had the time to reach the left one, so that left one will also move forward after a while. We can very well see how contraction would happen between the two, but it is less clear how dilation would happen. What seems clear to me though is that, even if it happened, it wouldn't affect the contraction or the speed of the system, because it wouldn't affect the synchronization between the two atoms.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Thebox on 21/06/2017 17:19:30
The two atoms emit their own light at their own frequency, and they have to move so that the light from the other atom looks as if it had the same frequency as theirs. If the left atom has moved towards the right one before its light had the time to reach the right one, that right one will move away from the left one after a while, and it will do so also before its light had the time to reach the left one, so that left one will also move forward after a while. We can very well see how contraction would happen between the two, but it is less clear how dilation would happen. What seems clear to me though is that, even if it happened, it wouldn't affect the contraction or the speed of the system, because it wouldn't affect the synchronization between the two atoms.
A timing dilation is easy to see and easy to explain, a time dilation however would be a conversation beyond the level of subjective left to right ''parlour tricks'' and involving rates of entropy change.
''They'' need to understand the nature of light, see other thread.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 21/06/2017 18:21:57
Time is made of cyclic motions. We measure long ones out of small ones. Long ones vary more than small ones, so small ones stay precise for a longer period, that's why atomic clocks are more precise. My two atoms use the light they emit to stay synchronized, and they succeed to do so because their components do the same thing. The clock from their components is a billion times more precise than the clock they make, that's how they can keep their inertial motion perfectly constant, at least from our viewpoint. If time dilation happens to one of them, it happens to the other too, so they don't get out of sync because of that, and their motion stays constant. Things need to have a use, and time dilation too. For the moment, I can't see any use for it at the atom's scale, and I am still not sure there is one at our scale. I still resist to the idea that one of the twins gets younger

No onE gets younger. The motion through space slows the aging process more as you approach c. If mass could go c the electron would not cycle. The aging process along with all reactions are based on the electron cycle. Dilation of mass increases the distance between energy  that move the electrons. Electrons have to go further in dilated space. All reactions in the frame slow because of increased distance traveled..
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 19:03:09
To me, slowing the aging process is equivalent to getting younger.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/06/2017 20:16:46
If you buy two spades and use one to double-dig your entire garden once a week for ten years, that spade will be badly worn by the end of that time. You can then get the other one out of a cupboard and it looks brand new, even though it's the same age as the worn one. The slowing of functionality that occurs when things move fast through space simply slows the wear. A human wears over time even if it isn't doing anything, so it's different from the spade which decays minimally when it's doing nothing - the human is actively wearing itself out all the time as its cells operate, but that functionality can be slowed by moving fast through space or sitting deep in a gravity well. The spades are the same age, and twins are the same age, but they are differently worn, leading one of each pair to look newer even though it has been around for the same length of time.

Thebox managed to get one thing right some way up this page - time dilation is badly named because the description really only works for SR where they do voodoo with time, so "timing dilation" is an excellent alternative which could replace the long phrase that I tend to use with LET (the slowing of apparent time). But does that really fix all the problems for him? Does he accept that there is such a thing as timing dilation?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 21/06/2017 21:34:24
He is correct it is only a measurement of looping cycles. Your time is based on c energy.

Dilation is only in mass (GR) not speed (SR). The further down a gravity well the more mass expands when energy expands (dilates).
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2017 22:21:22
 
If you buy two spades and use one to double-dig your entire garden once a week for ten years, that spade will be badly worn by the end of that time.
Your spade deteriorates more because it moves, and inversely, the twin deteriorates less also because it moves, so the comparison doesn't seem to hold. I found a use for contraction that improves my theory, but I didn't find any for dilation yet. If dilation has no use for particles, then why would it have any for us? The Muon experiment is certainly not a use. The GPS would be a use if we could attribute the dilation to motion, but gravitation is on the way. With your simulation, light would travel more distance between my two atoms in motion, so if it would become less intense because of that, then the bonding between the atoms would be affected, but your box mind experiment shows that there would be no way for us to detect that difference, so how could the atoms do so? I still think that if constant motion is really affecting emitted frequencies, in such a way that we can detect them, then that information has to be useful to something else than humans, and I can't see anything else than gravitation as a target.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 22/06/2017 12:22:05
 Le Repteux

   Lets look at observables. Deeper in a gravity hole the more red shifted the light. You already recognize the distance between atoms as the cause. Dilation of space between atoms.

Now that you have the incite you are looking for a cause. The deeper into a gravity well the more distance between atoms. That is counter intuitive to an experienced thinker but observation confirms that to be the case. Many want to compress the mass due to pressure. At this point it becomes conjecture as to the cause.

My thoughts on it are weightlessness in the center of the earth and gravity itself is due to dilation of space energy caused by mass. Space energy carry the photon wave on itself at a propagation c with energy being c as spin (gravitons, photons) being from the same energy but different physical affects. Mass is attracted to the most dilated energy state locally by the inverse square of the distance. The trick is energy c being (gravitons GR, photon wave SR) cause the affects.

Or some other theory might explain motion of relativity.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: Le Repteux on 22/06/2017 15:03:53
In my diagram, inertial mass is due to the left atom being forced to get out of sync with the incoming light, and data shows that there is equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, so I'm looking for a way to incorporate the redshift from gravitation into my mechanism, in such a way that the particles would be forced to move towards one another to avoid being out of sync. That's incidentally what my left particle does, it moves towards the right one to stay on sync with its light, which is actually redshifted since that right one was moving away from the left one when it emitted its light, but that redshift is not produced by dilation, it is pure doppler shift. If dilation was affecting my system of two particles, and if some light was able to escape the system, then non bonded particles would be forced to move towards one another, and that motion could produce gravitation. Gravitation would then be due to the dilation from inertial motion, and the redshift we observe from galaxies might not be due to motion, but to dilation. I'm just beginning to play with dilation and contraction, so it might take a while before I get used to the game. For the moment, I'm just thinking aloud.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 22/06/2017 15:56:14
In my diagram, inertial mass is due to the left atom being forced to get out of sync with the incoming light, and data shows that there is equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, so I'm looking for a way to incorporate the redshift from gravitation into my mechanism, in such a way that the particles would be forced to move towards one another to avoid being out of sync. That's incidentally what my left particle does, it moves towards the right one to stay on sync with its light, which is actually redshifted since that right one was moving away from the left one when it emitted its light, but that redshift is not produced by dilation, it is pure doppler shift. If dilation was affecting my system of two particles, and if some light was able to escape the system, then non bonded particles would be forced to move towards one another, and that motion could produce gravitation. Gravitation would then be due to the dilation from inertial motion, and the redshift we observe from galaxies might not be due to motion, but to dilation. I'm just beginning to play with dilation and contraction, so it might take a while before I get used to the game. For the moment, I'm just thinking aloud

I agree with your thinking. Let me add some potential thoughts but more on the GR side. Consider the lensing in galaxies we observe. I suspect the lensing is dilation of space energy c. Call it anything you like but something physical is being lensed. Its more lensed in the center of the galaxy similar to a planet being more dilated in the gravitational center. Lensing is the physical view of dilation of mass with a threshold to massless space. This dilation is also the inertia carrier. A crash between to physical objects exchange dilation and springs back to its new resting mass.
Back to the original point. We are 75% out from the center of our galaxy and our detector cells are less dilated than the light in the center of galaxies where 75% of the light comes to us. So all galaxies should be red shifted from our position just by GR and not necessary SR expansion of the universe. Red shift is based on dilated energy densities. Energy density works for both SR and GR for reference. Everyone is taught expansion as SR for the cause. No one is thinking for themselves. The head wind is to strong.

Light created in GR dilation has an equivalent in SR speed where light is created
If you take the Earth's surface attraction of 32 ft/s/s and reduce acceleration linearly to the distance to the center of the earth ~8,000 miles for your tick rate in a ship, in space and also in the earths distance from the sun, the clock on the ship would tick at the same rate as a clock in the center of the Earth. If you had a bulb in the front of your space ship the wavelength creates towards the rear of motion would be the same wavelength as the one in the center of the earth. There is the equivalence.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: phyti on 22/06/2017 18:12:59
David Cooper;
Quote
Imagine two rockets, one of which is stationary and the other which is moving along at the usual 86.6% the speed of light (because that gives us nice round numbers to work with). If we assume that rocket A is stationary and rocket B is moving, then the clocks in rocket B will be running at half the rate of the clocks in rocket A. These clocks could be connected up to radio transmitters to send out a beep for each tick. When the crew of rocket A listen to the beeps coming from rocket B, they may hear the beeps comming in at one beep every two seconds. When the crew of rocket B listen to the beeps coming from rocket A though, they too will hear one beep every two seconds.
You can see that twice as many ticks reach the stationary rocket as the moving one in a given length of time, but you have to remember that time is running at half the normal rate in the moving rocket, so those ticks will be perceived as arriving there at exactly the same rate as in the stationary rocket. Of course, if the moving rocket is travelling in the opposite direction and towards the stationary one, then the ticks arrive at both rockets at a much faster rate, as you can see below, but again when you allow for the slowed time in the moving ship, the perceived tick rates received by each ship are identical,
Whether individual paths or a closed course, the ratio of emitted signals to received signals is what's stated with the drawing, and none are 1:2 or 2:1. It seems like you are using instantaneous light speed. The only thing conserved is the exchange of 4 yr and 2 yr.
Quote
The contradictions in the accounts of events from different frames of reference are still important though, for they demonstrate that not all the accounts of events can be true. There is only one frame of reference which can be tied to the fabric of space, so its accounts are the ones which are true while all the other accounts are false.
The accounts are not false, but valid, since any inertial frame can serve as a reference. I.e. there is no need for an absolute rest frame. That is the 'principle of relativity'.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/06/2017 20:04:33
Your spade deteriorates more because it moves, and inversely, the twin deteriorates less also because it moves, so the comparison doesn't seem to hold.

The comparison is apt because it's about functionality and wear. An unused spade is "newer" in that it has worn less, and the same applies to the twin who has "aged" less. There are differences, of course, but think about this: when the twin moves at 0.866c through space, he hits a lot of electromagnetic radiation with amplified effective frequencies which damage him, so while he returns younger, he may die of cancer soon after due to the damage sustained, so does he really qualify as younger?


Quote
If dilation has no use for particles, then why would it have any for us? The Muon experiment is certainly not a use. The GPS would be a use if we could attribute the dilation to motion, but gravitation is on the way.

There are plenty of things which have no use for us, but that doesn't mean they aren't real, and it also doesn't mean we can ignore the effects they have on us.

Quote
With your simulation, light would travel more distance between my two atoms in motion, so if it would become less intense because of that, then the bonding between the atoms would be affected, but your box mind experiment shows that there would be no way for us to detect that difference, so how could the atoms do so?

Why would they need to detect it? They simply do what they do and are slowed without being able to detect the slowing.

Quote
I still think that if constant motion is really affecting emitted frequencies, in such a way that we can detect them, then that information has to be useful to something else than humans, and I can't see anything else than gravitation as a target.

Nothing is required to be useful to anything until you reach a point where you have an intelligence making things that are designed to be useful to that intelligence in some way.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/06/2017 20:10:49
Hi GoC,

If I'm understanding you to any extent, you appear to have backtracked on length-contraction by using some kind of "aura" effect on the MMX. Is that actually what you're saying, and if so, do you think there would be length-contraction acting on it if the apparatus was in deep space and moving at high speed?
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/06/2017 20:21:32
Whether individual paths or a closed course, the ratio of emitted signals to received signals is what's stated with the drawing, and none are 1:2 or 2:1. It seems like you are using instantaneous light speed. The only thing conserved is the exchange of 4 yr and 2 yr.

The 1:2 ratio is for the average, as stated. Each rocket will calculate that the other rocket is emitting one beep every two seconds, and they will measure it as that too if they count the beeps for a length of time while the rockets approach each other and keep counting beeps for the same length of time after they've passed each other.

Quote
The accounts are not false, but valid, since any inertial frame can serve as a reference. I.e. there is no need for an absolute rest frame. That is the 'principle of relativity'.

The accounts contradict each other and cannot all be true, so most of them are false. Our inability to pin down which ones are false and which true does not negate the necessity for one to be true and for any that contradict it to be false. The universe has to run on the basis of one frame and not on an infinite number of them at once where they produce contradictions. If you try to run a simulation without tying everything to a universal time, your simulation will produce event-meshing failures, and the same applies to the running of the real universe.
Title: Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?
Post by: GoC on 23/06/2017 00:39:07
Hi GoC,If I'm understanding you to any extent, you appear to have backtracked on length-c