0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

All that I show is that the current format of the Lorentz temporal transformation complies with the first postulate for round-trip events, but not one-way events. We can either choose to accept this as a limitation of STR, or choose a format for the temporal transformation that does comply with the first postulate for one-way events.

So what you are saying is that light is intrinsically linked to gravitation.

- There are two parallel linear events

- Event A is an electromagnetic event (velocity = c)...

- Event B is an inertial body event (velocity = u) ...

EVENTS OCCURRING IN REST FRAME (v = 0)- These events now occur within a reference frame considered to be at rest (rest frame).- The event time for A is; Δτ = x/c.- The event time for B is; Δt = x/u.

- The ratio of these event times gives us the relationship between their event times;Δτ/Δt = (x/c)/(x/u) = u/c.EVENTS OCCURRING IN INERTIAL FRAME (v)- These events now occur within a reference frame considered to be in uniform motion (inertial frame).- The SRT event time for A is; Δτ = (Δτ’+vx’/c^2)γ. Applying the second postulate;Δτ = (Δτ’+vx’/c^2)γ, x’ = cΔτ’Δτ = (Δτ’+v(cΔτ’)/c^2)γΔτ = (Δτ’+vΔτ’/c)γΔτ = Δτ’(1+ β)γ- The SRT event time for B is; Δt = (Δt’+vx’/c^2)γ.- The ratio of these event times gives us their the relationship between their event times;Δτ/Δt = [Δτ’(1+ β)γ]/[(Δt’+vx’/c^2)γ]Δτ/Δt = [Δτ’(1+ β)]/[(Δt’+vx’/c^2)]Δτ/Δt = [Δτ’(1+ β)]/[Δt’(1+vx’/(c^2)Δt’)]Δτ/Δt = [Δτ’(1+ β)]/[Δt’(1+ βx’/cΔt’)]

In order to satisfy the first postulate, the relationship between their event ..

times must remain unchanged in order to prevent one from ascertaining the motion of the inertial frame utilizing this scenario.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/02/2015 00:37:02So what you are saying is that light is intrinsically linked to gravitation.I thought variability of light was only seen in accelerating frames eg influence of gravity, not inertial frames.Did I miss something in the arguments?

Quote from: Colin2B on 17/02/2015 13:28:31Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/02/2015 00:37:02So what you are saying is that light is intrinsically linked to gravitation.I thought variability of light was only seen in accelerating frames eg influence of gravity, not inertial frames.Did I miss something in the arguments?No you didn't miss anything. It just gave me a thought which I am following up on. I followed his train of thought with difficulty but saw something interesting. It might be garbage but I am following it up.

At first sight it appears to me that this could be a confusion between who is observing and from which frame, can you make this clearer please?. The introduction of your 'unity' as a physical law could well be compounding this.

Quote from: HeyBert In order to satisfy the first postulate, the relationship between their event ..I don't understand. Who are "they" when you say "their event"?

Perhaps we can look at it this way as my original choice of words may have not been understood clearly by all...(τ and t indicate time spans, or time intervals measured by a clock).

Does the ratio of these two scenarios mathematically equal each other (same race happening in two different inertial frames)? If so, then how? If not, then what would stop us from determining the velocity of the inertial frame at velocity (v) by conducting such a "race" experiment and measuring how the ratio changes with increasing velocity of the inertial frame.

My calculations, where γ = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2;When the race occurs within the stationary laboratory frame (v = 0), no calculation is needed (inverse Lorentz transformation reduces to Galilean format) and the ratio of the photon time span to the electron time span WRT the stationary laboratory frame is simply;Photon: τ = τ'Electron: t = t'

Quote from: HeyBert on 19/02/2015 04:10:36My calculations, where γ = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2;When the race occurs within the stationary laboratory frame (v = 0), no calculation is needed (inverse Lorentz transformation reduces to Galilean format) and the ratio of the photon time span to the electron time span WRT the stationary laboratory frame is simply;Photon: τ = τ'Electron: t = t'You keep posting things like this without defining them. What you said tells us nothing about what those quantities are/mean.

OK, things are staring to look clearer, but before we confuse ourselves with maths let's be really clear that we are talking about the same things.Quote from: HeyBert on 19/02/2015 02:32:17Perhaps we can look at it this way as my original choice of words may have not been understood clearly by all...(τ and t indicate time spans, or time intervals measured by a clock).Which clock? Sorry to labour this but there are 2 clocks, one in the rest frame and one in the moving frame. For the observer in the moving frame the moving clock measures the same time intervals as when he made the same measurements in the rest frame so T/t is the same. So by doing a physics experiment he sees no difference between the frames. From his point of view he is stationary (because he is moving with the frame) and no Lorentz transforms are required.For the observer in the rest frame observing the moving frame, he sees the clock in the moving frame measuring time more slowly than the one he has next to him in the rest frame. So the T/t is not the same and this difference is calculated using the Lorentz transforms.Quote from: HeyBert on 19/02/2015 02:32:17Does the ratio of these two scenarios mathematically equal each other (same race happening in two different inertial frames)? If so, then how? If not, then what would stop us from determining the velocity of the inertial frame at velocity (v) by conducting such a "race" experiment and measuring how the ratio changes with increasing velocity of the inertial frame.As we can see, it depends who is doing the observing. For the observer who was stationary and is now moving there is no difference and this is what the postulate is all about. The observer cannot tell by the race experiment whether he is moving or not. He can however, look out of the window and see he is moving away from the rest frame, so would perceive himself as moving.For the observer who is stationary observing the moving frame, no the ratios are not the same. That's what relativity is all about, frames moving relative to one another.Again sorry to labour this, but it think there is a confusion of observers.I hate to say it but I don't think you are comparing light with light! []