0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

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.

Quote from: Thebox on 20/05/2017 13:18:27Then 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.

Davidthe 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 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.

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!!!!

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 .

Quote from: GoC on 20/05/2017 14:34:19Davidthe box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction.QuoteWhat 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 .

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

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: Thebox on 20/05/2017 19:45:12Complete 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.QuoteThe 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?QuoteDo 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.QuoteThe 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.

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?

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.

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.

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 metersok so far? t1.jpg (19.71 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 2042 times) t2.jpg (27.85 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 2028 times) t3.jpg (36.51 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 2026 times) t4.jpg (37.73 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 2017 times)t(c)/dx1+dx2=1.st(c)/dx1+dx2=1.sMy train has glass walls if it helps you understand.

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Thebox on 21/05/2017 19:24:38The 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.QuoteIt 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.QuoteI 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,QuoteIf 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,QuoteNo, 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.QuoteThe 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?QuoteI 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 = dTime for light to travel distance d = tTime for light to make round trip lengthways when vehicle at rest = 2tTime 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 = 2dTime 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 = 1/3dDistance light has moved during second part of trip = 2/3dWe 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.