[David Cooper]

...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.

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).

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).

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.)

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

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?

[guest39538]

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 4424 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.

[David Cooper]

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.

It is your understanding that is a failure.

What? My understanding fails because it fits the facts while yours doesn't?

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.

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.

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.[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.

[guest39538]

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.

It is your understanding that is a failure.

What? My understanding fails because it fits the facts while yours doesn't?

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.

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.

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 4424 times)

1.s=1.3s  using your broken measurement system

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 4390 times)

[guest39538]

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)=∞

[guest39538]

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 4425 times)

[guest39538]

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 4425 times)

50+ views and no answer , it is not that difficult surely?

[GoC (OP)]

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.

[guest39538]

The contraction is the amount of space not traveled by the photon. Your still in the rabbit hole believing the contraction is physical.

Correct

[guest39538]

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 4425 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?

[GoC (OP)]

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.

[Le Repteux]

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

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"?

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.

[David Cooper]

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?

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.

[Le Repteux]

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.

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.

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Le Repteux]

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)