0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 .

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.QuoteThe 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

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.

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

QuoteNot 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.

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.

QuoteIt reaches the mirror long before the 74.641cm point which is the distance you should be using.Your logic is missing the mark.

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

...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.

...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.

tA=0.75stB=1.5sthinks 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.

Quote from: Thebox on 23/05/2017 00:57:54Quite 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.

Quote from: Thebox on 23/05/2017 15:58:20tA=0.75stB=1.5sthinks that's correct now?QuoteWhat are those numbers supposed to represent?They represent the time it takes light to travel ebb and flow in a moving carriage. QuoteAnyway 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.QuoteThere 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

What are those numbers supposed to represent?

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Thebox on 23/05/2017 19:29:01The 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.

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.

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 do not think you viewed my latest last post. My numbers are correct.