0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Special relativity definitely does not include acceleration. That is the whole point of general relativity.

For all of you who accept mathematics over mechanism shame on you.

So for the photon E = hc/lambda where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light and lambda is the wavelength. Rearranging we get E/h = c/lambda. We can restate this as h/E = lambda/c which can be represented by t = lambda/c. This indicates a relationship between a change in time and a change in wavelength. Not necessarily a length contraction in the accepted sense.

So, shame on Isaac Newton then?

PhysBang:QuoteSo, shame on Isaac Newton then?No, there were a couple of posts I read recently that suggested all we needed was the math for Relativity. They suggested the cause was unimportant. Its shame on them not old Newton or even Einstein. He tried to look for the mechanics to his postulates.

The Doppler effect does the same thing to light images for the perpendicular observer at relative rest. The observer at rest views the object at half the speed of light at a 120 degree angle rather than a 90 degree angle by the time the image reaches him. So the angle of light as the perpendicular position becomes a 30,60,90 geometry triangle. Cos 30 is 0.866025 contracted view. The Lorentz contraction at half the speed of light is 0.866025 which many consider physical contraction just because the image is contracted. Smoke and mirrors can fool most of us. The visual image is just smoke and mirrors.

For a train carriage to contract in physical length at any speed, either a) the front of the train would have to be travelling at a slower speed than the rear of the carriage b) the rear of the train would have to be travelling faster than the front of the carriage.

Quote from: Thebox on Today at 03:44:09For a train carriage to contract in physical length at any speed, either a) the front of the train would have to be travelling at a slower speed than the rear of the carriage b) the rear of the train would have to be travelling faster than the front of the carriage. Very well reasoned.Now think how speed + slower and faster are calculated, then you have the answer

PhysBang Interestingly you take what I have said out of context. What are you jealous about?

I totally agree with relativistic math. I agree with the observations. I have reservations about the subjective standard model.

Specifically:1. A photon being physical mass traveling through space at c.This violates relativity. Just calling it virtual does not explain away the root problem.

2. The Lorentz contraction.

In SR we can calculate by geometry the extra distance light has to travel for reflection off an object. Light being independent of the source. This calculation is the same as the Lorentz contraction. So the contraction is a visual contraction and not physical contraction.

3. Gravity being curved space.This is a 2 dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional issue. It is the dilation of space in GR causing a relationship of attraction to the center of mass. Not a torsion of a curve. The torsion can follow gravity attraction to the center but that suggests a different mechanism than dilation.

4. Using only SR red shift for distance without taking into account GR red shift.This will cause an inaccurate relationship between galaxies in the same neighborhood. The larger galaxies will have a greater red shift and mathematically have a greater distance. The lensing affect is the dilation of a galaxy. there is an accumulated dilation affect.

Well here is something more interesting. We can say t = h/E. If we take h to be at a minimum at infinity then we can make the variable substitution of t = u/E. So that it is not the frequency that changes but an amplitude. Just a different way of looking at the same phenomena.

PhysBangI am sorry what I say is upsetting you. You look at the Universe as relativistic measurements. So your conclusions are the physical follows the math. I view relativistic math as a tool to understanding the physical universe. I do understand what main stream teaches and I agree with relativistic math. We just have a different perspective.

You seem jealous of what and the way you were taught.

Explain in detail where you believe I am lying. I totally believe relativity. Show me my mistake. Just saying am lying without explanation of the lie is pure emotion.

We can start with the expanding universe if you like as SR red shift and space expansion. Cepheid variables are also on the table if you like.

PhysBang Interestingly you take what I have said out of context. What are you jealous about? I totally agree with relativistic math. I agree with the observations. I have reservations about the subjective standard model. Specifically:1. A photon being physical mass traveling through space at c.This violates relativity. Just calling it virtual does not explain away the root problem.2. The Lorentz contraction.In SR we can calculate by geometry the extra distance light has to travel for reflection off an object. Light being independent of the source. This calculation is the same as the Lorentz contraction. So the contraction is a visual contraction and not physical contraction.3. Gravity being curved space.This is a 2 dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional issue. It is the dilation of space in GR causing a relationship of attraction to the center of mass. Not a torsion of a curve. The torsion can follow gravity attraction to the center but that suggests a different mechanism than dilation. 4. Using only SR red shift for distance without taking into account GR red shift.This will cause an inaccurate relationship between galaxies in the same neighborhood. The larger galaxies will have a greater red shift and mathematically have a greater distance. The lensing affect is the dilation of a galaxy. there is an accumulated dilation affect.Colin2BQuoteQuote from: Thebox on Today at 03:44:09For a train carriage to contract in physical length at any speed, either a) the front of the train would have to be travelling at a slower speed than the rear of the carriage b) the rear of the train would have to be travelling faster than the front of the carriage. Very well reasoned.Now think how speed + slower and faster are calculated, then you have the answerBy which observer?Using only SR if you synchronize clocks in the front of a train the one you take to the back from the direction of travel adds ticks until it reaches the back of the train. Once in the back of the train the front and back tick at the same rate but there is an offset where the rear clock is ahead of the front clock. When you send the signal from the back to the front the signal will show they remained synchronous if the train remains inertial. If you send the signal from front to back they will once again appear to be synchronized. That just means the same thing affects light and clocks equally. Physically there is a difference in clock time but not tick rate. An observer at rest with a magic photograph would view the difference in readouts. Mechanical clocks follow light clocks.The conclusion:Light and the electron are confounded in every frame.So rather than measuring with time we measure with relativistic time related to c. And once again measure by what observer?SR Size is visually relative to c.GR Size is physically relative to c.

Quote You seem jealous of what and the way you were taught.I must admit, I do have a certain jealousy that the things that I say generally are held to some standard of truth whereas yours do not seem to be held to any standard.

I gave a detailed response above: you claim to believe in one thing but then you directly deny that thing. Now, I get it if you are one of those clueless people who just goes about imagining the content of physics and spouts off without understanding the contradictions you are making.

Can you give a single example of SR redshift used in cosmology?

Moving one clock to the rear of the train has no affect on the train or the trains speed or the trains time. It doesn't matter if the clocks tick slower or if the clocks tick faster , I assure you there is no change in the trains journey time. You are enclosing your clocks in time. Time surrounds your clocks and is constant like the length of the train is constant , .

Take note the front of a train arrives before the rear

Quote from: theboxMoving one clock to the rear of the train has no affect on the train or the trains speed or the trains time. It doesn't matter if the clocks tick slower or if the clocks tick faster , I assure you there is no change in the trains journey time. You are enclosing your clocks in time. Time surrounds your clocks and is constant like the length of the train is constant , .With synchronized clocks in the front of a inertial train, if one is moved to the back, the clock moved to the back will tick faster until the clock comes to rest in the back of the train. Then they will resume the same tick rate.Quote from: theboxTake note the front of a train arrives before the rearYes and the difference in recorded time is the speed of light from the front to the back of the train.