0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Le Repteux on 31/05/2017 16:25:26David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction. hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.pngTry to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:Are you also unable to attach image files directly? I can't find any way of making the image appear at that site.
David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction. hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.pngTry to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:
Quote from: Le Repteux on 31/05/2017 20:37:00I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,It doesn't work that way because the speed of the object moving along the arm aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus would be different in different directions relative to the mirrors - when moving one way it would have more of its movement energy stored as relativistic mass instead of kinetic energy than when it's moving the other way.
I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,
I am not disagreeing your clocks would not tick at different rates because your scenario is designed to show that and that is what would happen. However you are quite clearly misinterpreting the information in which I do not blame you for, your education learnt you this to be so.
The clock at relative rest measures 1 tick which is equal to 1 secondThe clock in motion as not yet registered a tick. However the light travelling in either clock as travelled an equal distance because the speed is constant of the light.
All you are saying to me is that light takes longer to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance. There is nothing else you have said in all that you said. That is all it means so why do you think it means something else?
Do you still not understand that moving clocks tick at a slower rate than identical ones which are stationary? Do you still not understand that all clocks are slowed in this way? Do you still not understand that almost everything that has any functionality to it is a clock and its functionality will be slowed down by its speed of movement through space (creating the illusion that time is slowed down while in reality it is merely functionality that is slowed)?
Yes - the light has gone the same distance through space,
...but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors.
...but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive,
HUH? I know time never slows down, I also know the clocks tick at different frequencies, you do not seem to be understanding anything. There is no contraction of space, there is no contraction of the carriage, there is no contraction of the light,there is no time dilation , if you think there is , then you must be quite ''crazy''. What you fail to grasp is that nothing is slowed.
Yes the light is simultaneous in timing and in both clocks the light travels the same distance, it is your numbers that are incorrect.
What you are calling 1 second of the tick in motion is actually 1.1s and your numbers are wrong timed by the clock at rest.
In short you would not need the clock in motion because the clock at rest is the clock that is measuring time accurately.
You are trying to claim that the moving clock will tick slow and somehow know that it's ticking slow,
a moving clock's functionality being slowed?
How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?
Quote from: Le Repteux on 01/06/2017 17:46:25...but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors.Not so - the ball would be carrying more relativistic mass when going in one direction and less when going the other way, so you have to take that into account when working out its speed.
Quote...but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive,It isn't the same. The speed of light through the space fabric is always c, but as soon as you have mass tied up in something, its speed through the space fabric can vary, which is why a particle orbiting a black hole at 0.866c while the black hole is moving along at 0.866c will vary in speed between 0 and 0.99c through the fabric of space, whereas light going round in a circle at the event horizon of a black hole will move at c through the fabric of space throughout (ignoring the slowing caused by its depth in the gravity well).
Mass only affects resistance to acceleration, so when the ball would be bouncing forward, it would take more energy to accelerate it, but since the reflector would be more massive too, I think it should have the same speed with regard to the reflector than the one it had before hitting it.
One thing is sure, it actually takes the same time for a ball to travel forward than backward between two reflectors on earth whatever its speed through aether, and it shouldn't be so for light.
In fact, if we could see the photon, we would see it getting away from the laser at lower speed than the speed of light...
I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future?
You are close to understanding, the clock does not know it is ticking slowly , but we know it is ticking slower. We also know the reason it is ticking slowly, because the light is travelling a greater distance.
Quote a moving clock's functionality being slowed?In English ? what as that even suppose to mean.
QuoteHow do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?Because we are discussing relative motion and not absolute motion.
This is what you are doing, you are taking a constant length and , then for no reason changing the constant length but still keeping it and .If you actually did it without the ''parlour trick'' and put the new constant lengths appropriately, and , then having the parameters correct, there is no problem or contraction, just explanation that light takes different amount of times to travel different lengths. Which is very simple and obvious.
What makes you think I'm using ab and ba for the moving system? If I was starting with the leftward journey of the photon on a light clock which is moving to the right, the first measurement wouldn't be ca, but ba', and the second measurement wouldn't be ad, but a'b''' (the number of dashes after that last b not being an exact value and varying depending on the speed involved - all I'm trying to indicate with this is that aa' is a shorter distance than half bb''').
a moving clock's functionality being slowed?
QuoteI have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future?The rocket has clocks which all record two years' worth of ticks, and the Earth has clocks which all record four years' worth of ticks in the same length of time. The twin in the rocket has been around for just as long as the twin on the Earth, but has spent four years running in slow motion and has aged two years less due to slowed functionality; all of that slowing being caused by doubled communication distances between atoms/etc. and within atoms. The idea of shortcuts into the future doesn't actually add up in any Spacetime model, either because it introduces contradictions or because it still needs a Newtonian time to be added to the model if it is to function rationally, at which point the shortcuts are seen as fake, merely being things running in slow motion against Newtonian time while covering a reduced distance through a superfluous time dimension.
Then why do you say that «Clocks are slowed by movement, but more importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all»?
I still have a doubt though, because I can't figure out how a light clock could register less tics while moving through aether.
We can attribute the time dilation phenomenon to the atoms, but if a light clock can't measure it, how could the atoms do?
You said that the walls of your moving box would get the same quantity of energy, so how would the atoms be able to measure a difference at their scale? We can't measure the speed of light one way, so how would the atoms be able to do so?
With no difference in the speed of the information to measure, no difference in the frequency of light, and no difference in its intensity, it seems to me that a moving light clock or two moving atoms exchanging energy would have nothing more to register than if they were at rest.
Box,You appear, at times, to agree that there are three different tick rates for the clocks: the stationary clock ticks more quickly than the two moving ones, and the perpendicular moving clock ticks more quickly than the non-perpendicular one. You agreed with the numbers for this when you completed assignment 1.
Because the measurement of time would be meaningless if orientation mattered for tick rate.Observations suggest tick rate is the same in all orientations. Math has to follow a theory to be correct but a theory that follows math does not have to be correct. Either the physical clock has to contract or space has to lengthen to fit the math to the observation.We do have an observation that space Aether lengthens in the wavelength produced with increased velocity.This follows the equivalence principle.In GR Aether space energy has to expand to allow Black holes to form. Energy keeps atoms apart until the expansion become greater than the speed of light as gravity. We might have the same issue equivalence with Doppler affect on space expansion. If light has to travel further for the same distance the effect would be the same as physical contraction while still following relativity.