[GoC (OP)]

the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

The timing does increase in the east to west direction because you are slowing down. The electrons travel through less space per cycle. Light and the electron are always confounded. Light travels through less space also. This is why they are confounded. It is the cycle time of the electron that controls timing while c is the available time. The electron at c would have no cycle timing.

I've just shown you (for the n'th time) that the speed of light through the MMX arm aligned with the cable going round the Earth must on average be faster in one direction than the other

No the light is constant. The distance traveled is not if you are discussing relativity.

and for the "ticks" of that arm to remain in sync with the "ticks" of the perpendicular arm, it has to contract

No the ticks by distance is more and less by direction to complete the rotation. If we are discussing relativity.

More importantly though, the main impact on the relative speed of light to the apparatus in opposite directions comes from the Earth's movement round the sun rather than from its rotation

Then you do not understand clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level.

and no amount of voodoo can overcome that either by imagining that the rules out in space don't also apply down on the Earth

Do you consider gravity voodoo?

anything that adjusts to equalise the speeds would lead to measurable distortions, absolutely trashing GPS system measurements.

SOL is constant. Measurable distortions create the need for GPS systems.

[David Cooper]

the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

The timing does increase in the east to west direction because you are slowing down.

The timing reduces for that direction.

The electrons travel through less space per cycle.

They travel through more space per cycle.

Light travels through less space also.

When?

This is why they are confounded. It is the cycle time of the electron that controls timing while c is the available time. The electron at c would have no cycle timing.

We're talking about light moving along - not electrons.

No the light is constant. The distance traveled is not if you are discussing relativity.

The light is constant through space (ignoring a slight slowing in all directions in a gravitational field). The distance it travels in the MMX arm does not magically contract to a shorter length than the length of the MMX arm. The arm has to contract for the distance to contract.

and for the "ticks" of that arm to remain in sync with the "ticks" of the perpendicular arm, it has to contract

No the ticks by distance is more and less by direction to complete the rotation. If we are discussing relativity.

If we're discussing reality and relativity (as opposed to than voodoo and pseudo-relativity), an uncontracted arm of the MMX would lead to longer ticks than on the perpendicular arm.

More importantly though, the main impact on the relative speed of light to the apparatus in opposite directions comes from the Earth's movement round the sun rather than from its rotation

Then you do not understand clocks ticking at the same rate at sea level.

I understand it, and unlike you I understand that it's irrelevant.

Do you consider gravity voodoo?

Of course not, but your misuse of it most certainly is.

SOL is constant.

...apart from slowing in all directions in a gravitational field.

Measurable distortions create the need for GPS systems.

Nonsense. You're dragging imaginary distortions into it.

[GoC (OP)]

The timing reduces for that direction.

The tick rate increases east to west because of deceleration vs. acceleration reducing the tick rate west to east. If you are using timing as tick rate.

They travel through more space per cycle.

One of us is viewing this backwards. At rest vs. velocity of the electron the at rest atom of hydrogen's electron travels through less space per cycle. This increases the tick rate at rest vs. the slower tick rate with speed. Like the body counts every calorie the electron counts all distance traveled through space.

the timing must increase unless the arm contracts.

The timing does increase in the east to west direction because you are slowing down.

The timing reduces for that direction.

The electrons travel through less space per cycle.

They travel through more space per cycle.


When?

When deceleration happens tick rate increases. You are decelerating east to west. Your intercept point has less distance not because anything physical contracts but because light is independent of the source being intercepted.

t does not matter how fast you are co-moving and creating light in the same direction light can only move at c. But an object on an intercept course will shorten the distance without the need for physical contraction. Light being independent of the source. It remains c but you have to add the speed of the intercepting object.

So east to west your tick rate increases and the distance measured by light is shorter. The shorter distance is matched by the increased tick rate to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in both directions.

Your confused because your not recognizing relativity properly. No wonder you are confused.

We're talking about light moving along - not electrons.

They are confounded in every frame. The use of the term confounded means they both adjust ( Light distance and tick rate) to measure the SOL the same in every frame. Well now I suspect that might be more relevant on a planet than in space because the tick rate is the same at sea level rotating with and against Earth rotation around the sun. Local measurement in gravity may be different than space lacking gravity. A planet Might create a situation with gravity that the north and south directions of light are not affected by rotation and travel in a straight line in those directions. So we have a point of origin that speed in space does not. So the mathematics for physical contraction might not be valid for a planet. If that is the case only the voyagers moved out of the solar systems gravity rotation and dilation. Would light clocks tick the same by orientation relative to mechanical clocks? Curios.

The light is constant through space (ignoring a slight slowing in all directions in a gravitational field). The distance it travels in the MMX arm does not magically contract to a shorter length than the length of the MMX arm. The arm has to contract for the distance to contract.

You might be confusing light being constant with distance being constant. Space dilates in GR and distance for light increases in SR with equivalence of speed and gravity for tick rate. The arm does not have to contract if the distance between two objects is decreasing.

If we're discussing reality and relativity (as opposed to than voodoo and pseudo-relativity), an uncontracted arm of the MMX would lead to longer ticks than on the perpendicular arm.

If we have an origin to get back to the longer distance is exactly offset by the shorter distance east and west. Clocks tick at the same rate suggests an origin and negates the voodoo physical contraction. Two directions in the same optical cable (with different phases still would have a difference in distance traveled and not return synchronous in the east west direction but would in the north south directions.

I understand it, and unlike you I understand that it's irrelevant.

Considering clocks tick at the same rate at sea level with and against Earth's orbit irrelevant? In pure relativity clocks should tick faster retro orbit. And you consider that irrelevant?

[David Cooper]

The tick rate increases east to west because of deceleration vs. acceleration reducing the tick rate west to east. If you are using timing as tick rate.

Light doesn't accelerate or decelerate - it goes at a constant speed.

One of us is viewing this backwards.

It depends on what's actually being said - it's too far a chase back up through earlier posts to find out what's the original point was.

At rest vs. velocity of the electron the at rest atom of hydrogen's electron travels through less space per cycle. This increases the tick rate at rest vs. the slower tick rate with speed. Like the body counts every calorie the electron counts all distance traveled through space.

That sounds reasonable now that it's clear that you're talking about an electron cycling around something rather than just an electron floating about on its own.

When deceleration happens tick rate increases. You are decelerating east to west. Your intercept point has less distance not because anything physical contracts but because light is independent of the source being intercepted.

There's no deceleration. The light simply has less distance to travel through space to "complete" the westward circuit because it doesn't actually complete a circuit, whereas light doing the circuit eastward has to do more than a circuit.

It does not matter how fast you are co-moving and creating light in the same direction light can only move at c. But an object on an intercept course will shorten the distance without the need for physical contraction. Light being independent of the source. It remains c but you have to add the speed of the intercepting object.

An object on an intercept course does not shorten the distance - from the frame of reference in which it is at rest, it imagines that the distance has shortened, but from the frame of reference it's moving through, it shortens nothing other than itself.

So east to west your tick rate increases and the distance measured by light is shorter. The shorter distance is matched by the increased tick rate to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in both directions.

Your confused because your not recognizing relativity properly. No wonder you are confused.

The confusion is all yours, but the only way to show you that would be to write a program to demonstrate it. Given how long this conversation has gone on, it might be quickest just to do that rather than having every proven point rejected by you out of hand on the basis or irrelevant factors, misunderstood theory and miscellaneous voodoo.

They are confounded in every frame. The use of the term confounded means they both adjust ( Light distance and tick rate) to measure the SOL the same in every frame.

That doesn't matter - the numbers only add up correctly with length contraction, so if you're ruling it out, you're going against mathematics.

Well now I suspect that might be more relevant on a planet than in space because the tick rate is the same at sea level rotating with and against Earth rotation around the sun.

No it isn't - the tick rate can vary without you being able to measure that change. You're basing that on an assumption that the sun is stationary, and that's seriously unlikely to be correct.

Local measurement in gravity may be different than space lacking gravity. A planet Might create a situation with gravity that the north and south directions of light are not affected by rotation and travel in a straight line in those directions.

It doesn't.

So we have a point of origin that speed in space does not. So the mathematics for physical contraction might not be valid for a planet. If that is the case only the voyagers moved out of the solar systems gravity rotation and dilation. Would light clocks tick the same by orientation relative to mechanical clocks? Curios.

So long as there's length contraction, all accurate co-moving clocks will tick in sync regardless of orientation (unless a gravitational field messes with that - I don't know if a light clock arranged vertically is guaranteed to stay in sync with one arranged vertically, but I suspect it still would).

You might be confusing light being constant with distance being constant. Space dilates in GR and distance for light increases in SR with equivalence of speed and gravity for tick rate. The arm does not have to contract if the distance between two objects is decreasing.

Within a frame of reference, c is constant and so is distance. The MMX is moving through the frame being used for the analysis and it has to contract for that frame (and if that frame is the absolute one, the contraction must be absolutely real). What you're trying to do is have an object's movement contract space not merely for itself, but for another frame, and that shows that you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity which is preventing you from making further progress.

If we have an origin to get back to the longer distance is exactly offset by the shorter distance east and west.

No it isn't - the distance is always longer than that because you aren't allowed to change the speed of the apparatus between the two legs of the trip for the light.

Clocks tick at the same rate suggests an origin and negates the voodoo physical contraction.

It's voodoo without the contraction - you cannot have light clocks tick in sync on different alignments without it.

Considering clocks tick at the same rate at sea level with and against Earth's orbit irrelevant?

It's plain incorrect - you're making an incorrect extrapolation from the idea that they all tick at the same rate for the frame of reference in which the Earth is stationary. It doesn't apply to any other frames.

In pure relativity clocks should tick faster retro orbit.

They should and doubtless do.

And you consider that irrelevant?

It is irrelevant because you're misapplying it, not understanding that it is only the case if the Earth is not moving along through space at all but is merely rotating.

[GoC (OP)]

Quote from: GoC on Yesterday at 13:24:43The tick rate increases east to west because of deceleration vs. acceleration reducing the tick rate west to east. If you are using timing as tick rate.Light doesn't accelerate or decelerate - it goes at a constant speed.

Yes light is constant but kinetic energy used reduces the tick rate of a clock. It has been agreed that light and mechanical clocks tick at the same rate. A plane moving east to west proved the tick rate increases over west to east. This is an observed fact. A plane decelerates from the rotation of the earth in the east to west direction. The change in tick rate proves light is constant. There is a depth of understanding you are missing. Relativity is a machine and you are missing some parts in your understanding. Your first instinct is to deny there is anything missing in your understanding. This is a block to your depth. Reason deeper. Take in more facts to your opinion.

That sounds reasonable now that it's clear that you're talking about an electron cycling around something rather than just an electron floating about on its own.

Sorry I recognized electrons never float around on their own along time ago. The representative wave of an electron on the spectrum does. The dual slit experiment is a wave only. When they look at it the wave becomes polarized. No real challenge to understanding. The standard model creates its own challenge to understanding.

 

There's no deceleration. The light simply has less distance to travel through space to "complete" the westward circuit because it doesn't actually complete a circuit, whereas light doing the circuit eastward has to do more than a circuit

The airplane atomic clocks prove that to be incorrect. The rotation of the earth (speed) decelerates in the east to west direction while the speed of light remains constant. This is why a fiber cable around the equator sending light in both directions would be different times for their return. The speed of light is the same for both directions but the distance changes for both directions. Simultaneity of relativity is different. You understand something is wrong and of course you blame it on relativity. It is actually your view of relativity that needs a deeper understanding. A good start from your current position might be view it in energy rather than speed. You have a battery in space that mass connects to allow motion. That battery is c zero point energy. The battery is constant, Electrons all move at the same rate in a frame. Electrons always move at c. Electrons move in a helix through space. Increased Speed causes the electron to travel through more space per cycle reducing tick rate. The speed is the reduced energy available we describe as kinetic.Kinetic energy is a portion of the energy used of the total. East to west speed on the earth reduces the kinetic energy used and the tick rate of your clocks increase. There is no absolute frame because you can never measure your kinetic energy being used accurately.

An object on an intercept course does not shorten the distance - from the frame of reference in which it is at rest, it imagines that the distance has shortened, but from the frame of reference it's moving through, it shortens nothing other than itself

Now there is the voodoo. Light has no power to shorten a physical object and neither does mathematics. You never know your kinetic energy used relative to c. Measuring the speed of light in a vacuum in every frame as the same just proves this point. The energy available in a frame is what is being measured and its always c. Kinetic energy used cannot be measured by c. It can only be measured relative to another physical object. There is no absolute frame able to be measured. there may be a space where energy density is the greatest but measuring that point destroys the density of energy. And you would still only measure c.

The confusion is all yours, but the only way to show you that would be to write a program to demonstrate it. Given how long this conversation has gone on, it might be quickest just to do that rather than having every proven point rejected by you out of hand on the basis or irrelevant factors, misunderstood theory and miscellaneous voodoo.

Measurements using light to measure light is meaningless. That is the voodoo. You cannot measure a system if what you are measuring is part of the system.

That doesn't matter - the numbers only add up correctly with length contraction, so if you're ruling it out, you're going against mathematics.

No you are using mathematics without all of the information corrected for your model. The tick rate and distance for light both change on the Earth. They are confounded. Your model does not take that into account. No matter what clock you use your still measuring light with light in your clocks that is the meaning of confounded between the electron and photon. Your clock is not moving in your frame but the light is being measured by the clock. Your measurement of light in the clock is at a different relative speed and distance to the light. But you are measuring light with light and believing your measurements have precision which is correct but not accurate.

 

No it isn't - the tick rate can vary without you being able to measure that change. You're basing that on an assumption that the sun is stationary, and that's seriously unlikely to be correct.

This is why earlier I said available energy verses kinetic energy used. The total energy density for tick rate is dictated by the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy and universe. But the energy on the Earth is dictated more by gravity than by rotation as proven by clocks ticking at the same rate with and against the earths orbit. This creates a stationary position for light to return to in space on the Earth. So East and West changes its energy density for tick rate of a clock in motion relative to the Earth (proven by atomic clocks on airplanes). There is also a distance change for light because light is independent of the source. No physical contraction. You cannot follow the math if your model is incorrect and claim accuracy.

So long as there's length contraction, all accurate co-moving clocks will tick in sync regardless of orientation (unless a gravitational field messes with that - I don't know if a light clock arranged vertically is guaranteed to stay in sync with one arranged vertically, but I suspect it still would).

By observation they do stay in synchronization but that may be because of gravity creating a North South position of a fixed frame for light to return. The medium for light rotating with the Earth which causes gravity to go straight down also. The medium for light and gravity would be the same but different aspects of the spectrum. Increased Dilation of the spectrum energy would be the gravity and bend the light. Relativity is more than just following math you also have to follow the correct model. Math is a tool and a very good tool but it cannot prove a theory. it can only disprove a theory. Your contraction of mass and my decrease in distance because of independent of the source both follow math. I do not believe light can contract mass.

Within a frame of reference, c is constant and so is distance.

This is where your understanding of relativities independent of the source is a failure to understand distances correctly. Clocks ticking at the same rate on a planet creates a fixed position in latitude for light to return. This may be different in space for clocks orientation than on Earth when you follow the model. That is more likely than light forcing mass to contract.

The MMX is moving through the frame being used for the analysis and it has to contract for that frame (and if that frame is the absolute one, the contraction must be absolutely real).

There is no absolute frame that can be measured. That does not mean c is not the absolute frame. We just cannot measure it. We do our best to measure with it but it does not contract a physical object.

What you're trying to do is have an object's movement contract space not merely for itself, but for another frame, and that shows that you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity which is preventing you from making further progress.

That may be true of one or both of us. I do not believe SR can contract space although I believe GR can dilate space energy spectrum. SR light is independent of the source. That is all I am following.

No it isn't - the distance is always longer than that because you aren't allowed to change the speed of the apparatus between the two legs of the trip for the light

You are not changing the speed of light you are changing the distance light travels because light is independent of the source. You are confusing a frame's fixed physical distance with the distance light has to travel between in each direction. They are different because light is independent of the source and constant. That does not mean it is constant relative to the physical frame. The relative speed of light is different by direction.

"In pure relativity clocks should tick faster retro orbit" My statement

They should and doubtless do

But observation proves the orbit in retro grade tick at the same rate as with the orbit. You are just ignoring facts to maintain your belief system.

It is irrelevant because you're misapplying it, not understanding that it is only the case if the Earth is not moving along through space at all but is merely rotating

If clocks tick at the same rate at sea level all over the planet earth than the earth's affect on light is as if it is stationary and only rotating. Clocks and the photon are confounded so light returns to a stationary position in the MMX. The Null result.

[guest4091]

We begin with a coin.
Ann's line of sight is perpendicular to the face of the coin, she sees a circle.
Ben's line of sight is 45 deg to the face of the coin, he sees an ellipse.
Louie questions, how can the coin be circular and elliptical at the same time?
Vinnie answers, it can't, but the images can, since Ann and Ben are in different locations. The coin has 2 different locations, 1 relative to each observer. The locations are not properties of the coin, but perceptions of the observers.
Motion is a change of position for an interval of time. Therefore each observer has a unique sequence of images as their perception of a moving object. The motion is not a property of the object, but a changing relation of positions between object and observer.
Each observer experiences a private/local/unique perception of events in their world. Their descriptions will be different. The idea of being contradictory only occurs if the perceptions are erroneously applied to the moving object.

[David Cooper]

There is a depth of understanding you are missing. Relativity is a machine and you are missing some parts in your understanding. Your first instinct is to deny there is anything missing in your understanding. This is a block to your depth. Reason deeper. Take in more facts to your opinion.

If I don't mention irrelevant things which we both agree on, that doesn't represent a lack of understanding on my part, but a better grasp of which things are relevant to the issue in question because I don't bring in extraneous junk in the way you have to as diversions away from your mistakes.

Sorry I recognized electrons never float around on their own along time ago.

They can do, so every time in the past when you've talked about confounded electrons, I though you were talking about electrons in isolation.

There's no deceleration. The light simply has less distance to travel through space to "complete" the westward circuit because it doesn't actually complete a circuit, whereas light doing the circuit eastward has to do more than a circuit

The airplane atomic clocks prove that to be incorrect.

No they don't. There is no deceleration for the light - I'm not sending aeroplanes round the cable.

Simultaneity of relativity is different. You understand something is wrong and of course you blame it on relativity. It is actually your view of relativity that needs a deeper understanding.

I don't blame anything on relativity - LET is the real relativity, and it works.

A good start from your current position might be view it in energy rather than speed. You have a battery in space that mass connects to allow motion. That battery is c zero point energy. The battery is constant, Electrons all move at the same rate in a frame. Electrons always move at c.

Electrons have mass and cannot reach c. In a battery, the electrons actually crawl round at such a slow speed that in a typical setup none of them complete the circuit back to the other end of the battery before it is flat.

Now there is the voodoo. Light has no power to shorten a physical object and neither does mathematics.

Who said light can shorten an object? I didn't. But maths insists that objects must contract as they move faster.

[Deletes more unfounded assertions - can't be bothered responding to them.]

Measurements using light to measure light is meaningless. That is the voodoo. You cannot measure a system if what you are measuring is part of the system.

You can do it, but you can't assume that your measurements are correct. Anything you measure as being contracted may actually be the thing that's uncontracted while the measurer is contracted. But, you can show that things are contracted by movement even if you can't definitively determine which ones are the contracted ones.

No you are using mathematics without all of the information corrected for your model.

It's all conditional as to what is contracted, but it is certain that moving things are contracted. Not knowing which ones are contracted does not overturn the fact that moving things are contracted - anyone who thinks it does has failed to apply the maths correctly.

Your model does not take that into account. No matter what clock you use your still measuring light with light in your clocks that is the meaning of confounded between the electron and photon.

I take everything relevant into account. I can show how it works for any frame of reference and produce definitive conditional statements as to what's going on, and every single frame tells the same story, that moving things must contract. It doesn't matter which frame represents reality because whichever one it is, it requires moving things to contract.

This is why earlier I said available energy verses kinetic energy used. The total energy density for tick rate is dictated by the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy and universe. But the energy on the Earth is dictated more by gravity than by rotation as proven by clocks ticking at the same rate with and against the earths orbit. This creates a stationary position for light to return to in space on the Earth.

No it doesn't - that is pure voodoo.

So East and West changes its energy density for tick rate of a clock in motion relative to the Earth (proven by atomic clocks on airplanes). There is also a distance change for light because light is independent of the source. No physical contraction. You cannot follow the math if your model is incorrect and claim accuracy.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. All these experiments prove that you don't have a stationary position for light to return to in space on the Earth. It's bonkers!

By observation they do stay in synchronization but that may be because of gravity creating a North South position of a fixed frame for light to return. The medium for light rotating with the Earth which causes gravity to go straight down also. The medium for light and gravity would be the same but different aspects of the spectrum. Increased Dilation of the spectrum energy would be the gravity and bend the light. Relativity is more than just following math you also have to follow the correct model. Math is a tool and a very good tool but it cannot prove a theory. it can only disprove a theory. Your contraction of mass and my decrease in distance because of independent of the source both follow math. I do not believe light can contract mass.

A mishmash of self-confusion. You're just trying to bury the issue in irrelevant junk. The issue is really simple - there is an MMX on the surface of the Earth with light moving along its arms and it would take longer to go along one arm and back than the other if that arm didn't contract. For it not to contract, light can only complete the trip on that arm in the same length of trip by going faster than light. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter a damn what gravity's doing to it as the slowing caused by that is the same on both arms. Imagine the Earth spinning with the MMS doing 0.866c and you'll see that the arm must contract to half its rest length for the two arms to "tick" in sync. All the other factors fade away into utter irrelevance when you do that. Slow the rotation and length contraction still applies, and continues to apply all the way down to the actual speed of the Earth's rotation. Your voodoo is just a pile of utter sh*** based on your rejection of real science and mathematics.

This is where your understanding of relativities independent of the source is a failure to understand distances correctly.

No, it's where your understanding is absent.

Clocks ticking at the same rate on a planet creates a fixed position in latitude for light to return. This may be different in space for clocks orientation than on Earth when you follow the model. That is more likely than light forcing mass to contract.

Voodoo. An array of clocks ticking in sync creates no such thing as a fixed position as all those clocks can be moving at any speed up to a fraction below c. You are a specialist in self-deception.

No it isn't - the distance is always longer than that because you aren't allowed to change the speed of the apparatus between the two legs of the trip for the light

You are not changing the speed of light you are changing the distance light travels because light is independent of the source.

Well done for getting that right and agreeing with me. The point is that the distance is not contracted and the light has to cover the distance in full, so it takes longer to do so, which means that the MMX arm must actually be contracted so that light doesn't take longer to make the trip because it doesn't have any further to travel through space than on the perpendicular arm.

You are confusing a frame's fixed physical distance with the distance light has to travel between in each direction. They are different because light is independent of the source and constant. That does not mean it is constant relative to the physical frame. The relative speed of light is different by direction.

I'm not confusing anything, darling - the confusion is all on your part. That's why my simulations work and you aren't able to program any of your own. The distance the light travels is that distance that the absolute frame requires it to travel - it cannot break that rule. The only complication is that we can't identify the absolute frame, but that doesn't matter as we can make conditional pronouncements on this for any frame at all, and every single one of them agrees that objects contract when they're moving.

But observation proves the orbit in retro grade tick at the same rate as with the orbit. You are just ignoring facts to maintain your belief system.

Which relevant facts am I ignoring? What I've been telling you throughout is consistent with all the facts, whereas what you are saying conflicts with them. This latest statement of yours means what? If you have two things orbiting at the same height in opposite directions round a stationary planet, they will orbit at the same speed through space and their clocks will tick at the same rate while the planet rotates underneath them. Does that add anything to the issue being discussed? No - nothing that hasn't already been adequately covered by the light in the fibre-optic cable. Do we need to drag planes in so that we can have them circle the Earth at the same speed relative to the Earth's surface below them? No. All you're doing is going off on diversions to hide the fact that you're plain wrong on the actual issue under discussion.

If clocks tick at the same rate at sea level all over the planet earth than the earth's affect on light is as if it is stationary and only rotating. Clocks and the photon are confounded so light returns to a stationary position in the MMX. The Null result.

Clocks don't tick at the same rate at sea level all over a rotating planet unless the planet actually is stationary in space. Most of the time, the Earth cannot be stationary in space, so the clocks are only ticking at the same rate on average over multiples of 23h 56m. But even if the Earth was stationary, the arm of the MMX aligned with the rotation would still have to contract.

[David Cooper]

We begin with a coin.
Ann's line of sight is perpendicular to the face of the coin, she sees a circle.
Ben's line of sight is 45 deg to the face of the coin, he sees an ellipse.
Louie questions, how can the coin be circular and elliptical at the same time?
Vinnie answers, it can't, but the images can, since Ann and Ben are in different locations. The coin has 2 different locations, 1 relative to each observer. The locations are not properties of the coin, but perceptions of the observers.

Regardless of what they see, both of them can work out that if the coin is at rest in space or is aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, it is circular, and if it's moving through space with a different orientation to perpendicular, it is elliptical. They therefore can't tell which shape it really is, but they can make definitive conditional statements about its shape, and if the conditions of one of those statements are true, the claim about the coin's shape in that statement must also be true (while any claims in other conditional statements which contradict that claim must be false).

Motion is a change of position for an interval of time. Therefore each observer has a unique sequence of images as their perception of a moving object. The motion is not a property of the object, but a changing relation of positions between object and observer.
Each observer experiences a private/local/unique perception of events in their world. Their descriptions will be different. The idea of being contradictory only occurs if the perceptions are erroneously applied to the moving object.

They are contradictory if they cannot both/all be true. With relativity, the claims generated by using different frames of analysis are contradictory and cannot all be true. It's important to think about what makes a real contradiction and what doesn't. Imagine that we're sitting opposite each other and looking at each other across a table (both the same way up). On the table there's a ball and an octopus (because these are typical objects found on tables). I might say, "the octopus is to the right of the ball" and you might say "the octopus is to the left of the ball", but there is no real contradiction there because we have both made ambiguous statements which don't spell things out with precision. I should have said "the octopus is to my right of the ball" and you should have said "the octopus is to my left of the ball". With relativity we can do the same kind of thing. If we move past each other at high speed, I can say "you're length contracted and I'm not", and you can make the same claim. The claims contradict each other and cannot both be correct. However, we could both say, "if I'm not moving, you're length contracted and I'm not", and now what we have said is not in conflict because they are both true conditional statements. The claims generated using any frame of reference as the base of the calculations as to what's doing what are all conditionally true, meaning that if that frame is stationary, all of those pronouncements are true (and that if it isn't stationary, many of those pronouncements will be false). All the conditional statements generated using different frames are equally conditionally-true - they are all equally potentially valid. But only one of them is right, and the claims of most frames once stripped of the conditionality clause are false.

[GoC (OP)]

But only one of them is right, and the claims of most frames once stripped of the conditionality clause are false.

Ok I can agree the physical view does not represent the physical object because there is no valid view.

I would like to know more about your belief in physical contraction. Explain it to me in terms of a fiber cable going around the Equator. Pick a point any point and allow light to travel around the globe in both directions. East to west will return before west to east in the same cable. You claim the cable is shorter in the east to west direction but it is the same cable.

But only one cable is right, and the claims of most contracted physical objects once stripped of the conditionality clause is false.

And using the same cable strips the claim of contracted physically as false. The cable cannot be contracted physically and not be contracted physically at the same time.

Unless of course the contracted physical cable and uncontracted physical cable are both valid.

[David Cooper]

I would like to know more about your belief in physical contraction. Explain it to me in terms of a fiber cable going around the Equator. Pick a point any point and allow light to travel around the globe in both directions. East to west will return before west to east in the same cable.

Correct - light going westwards doesn't quite have to complete a rotation to get back to the emitter/detector, whereas light going eastwards has to do a fraction more than a complete rotation, and that shows that the light is moving faster relative to the material of the cable that it's passing through in one direction than the other (on average).

You claim the cable is shorter in the east to west direction but it is the same cable.

No - the cable is the same length in both directions, and it's slightly contracted for both directions (on average) because of its movement through space. The contracted arm of the MMX is likewise contracted for both directions (whether the light's moving through it east or west).

But only one cable is right, and the claims of most contracted physical objects once stripped of the conditionality clause is false.

The analysis for each frame says that only objects at rest in that frame are uncontracted. There is no frame that will say that the cable is uncontracted because there is no frame in which it is at rest. (Note: I only count inertial frames as frames.) Most frames will assert that the cable is further contracted by movement of the planet through space, but even the frame with the planet at rest has a contracted cable, just as the edge of a rotating disc must contract (or become stressed).

And using the same cable strips the claim of contracted physically as false. The cable cannot be contracted physically and not be contracted physically at the same time.

There is no frame in which anything is contracted and uncontracted at the same time. The cable is contracted by its movement through space and not by the light moving through it.

[GoC (OP)]

Ok now the same situation North and south. A fiber cable at sea level. Are we going with the not contracted?

[David Cooper]

Ok now the same situation North and south. A fiber cable at sea level. Are we going with the not contracted?

If the Earth is rotating round a stationary centre, the cable will be contracted across the way (rather than lengthways), and the contraction will be strongest at the equator and non-existent at the poles. Move the planet through space, and then the contraction is determined by working out which direction each bit of cable is moving through space and which direction it's moving through space in.

[GoC (OP)]

Move the planet through space, and then the contraction is determined by working out which direction each bit of cable is moving through space and which direction it's moving through space in

That would affect tick rate by direction and we established clocks tick at the same rate all over the globe independent of orbit around the sun. Clocks should tick slower with the orbit than against the orbit. This is not observed.

Contraction is a faith issue. You cannot measure the contraction because your measuring stick becomes contracted. I recognize that same issue in GR dilation but we can observe dilation.

So you must be saying the same thing I do when light in the East and West fiber cable circles the Earth one falls short and one falls long in the circumference. In the cable's contracted state light auto corrects to match the North to south rate.

And there is no way to prove the physical contraction model. No way to prove light slows down as a model. 

[guest4091]

They are contradictory if they cannot both/all be true.

The coin has specifications including material, form, and dimensions. The coin never has an elliptical shape, which would make it a reject.
If the observers were replaced with cameras, and each formed a photo of the coin, one image would show a round coin, the other would show an elliptical coin. The mfr of the coin can prove it was formed round producing the die used. The photos are formed from light reflecting from the coin to the lens. Science can explain the difference in the photos, in terms of camera positions and light propagation.
Do you know the difference between a thing and an image of the thing?

[David Cooper]

The coin has specifications including material, form, and dimensions. The coin never has an elliptical shape, which would make it a reject.

If there's length-contraction acting on it and it isn't aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, it is elliptical, just as the orbit of a planet round a fast moving star will be elliptical even if it appears circular to observers co-moving with that star.

If the observers were replaced with cameras, and each formed a photo of the coin, one image would show a round coin, the other would show an elliptical coin. The mfr of the coin can prove it was formed round producing the die used.

That is no proof - the coin may be moving at high speed, as so might the die, and if they have different length contraction acting on them they will be differently warped by this, but whenever you bring them together and fit the coin into the dye, it will fit perfectly because they will be co-moving.

The photos are formed from light reflecting from the coin to the lens. Science can explain the difference in the photos, in terms of camera positions and light propagation. Do you know the difference between a thing and an image of the thing?

Of course I know the difference - the real question is whether you understand that contracted things change their shape.

[David Cooper]

That would affect tick rate by direction and we established clocks tick at the same rate all over the globe independent of orbit around the sun.

Combine the Earth's rotation with it's orbital movement and the clocks vary in their ticking rates. Then consider that the Earth may be moving faster through space at one point of its orbit than the opposite point and you have them all slowing down and speeding up throughout the year.

Clocks should tick slower with the orbit than against the orbit. This is not observed.

If you mean on one side of the Earth versus the other, a difference will occur, but it cannot be measured independently of a frame of reference, and you'll get a different result depending on which frame you use. If you assert that the sun is stationary, you will not measure clocks ticking more slowly on one side of the Earth than the other, but if you assert that the sun is moving, you will.

Contraction is a faith issue. You cannot measure the contraction because your measuring stick becomes contracted. I recognize that same issue in GR dilation but we can observe dilation.

If you can show that contraction of object A must occur for frame B and that object B must contract for frame A, you know that either object A or B must be contracted. Not being able to tell which of them is contracted does not overturn the necessity for one of them to be contracted. That is why it is not a faith issue - to believe that neither is contracted is to believe in the impossible.

So you must be saying the same thing I do when light in the East and West fiber cable circles the Earth one falls short and one falls long in the circumference. In the cable's contracted state light auto corrects to match the North to south rate.

The contraction of the cable round the Earth does not reduce the distance the light has to travel to complete a circuit. The contraction of the MMX arm does have an effect though on the time taken for light to get along it and back because it reduces the distance to the mirror (which is the only thing that can bounce the light back). That contraction is the only thing that can adjust the tick rate for that path to keep it in sync with the perpendicular one.

And there is no way to prove the physical contraction model. No way to prove light slows down as a model.

Particle accelerators have already proved it through relativistic mass. Circular orbits must length contract on all scales.

[GoC (OP)]

Combine the Earth's rotation with it's orbital movement and the clocks vary in their ticking rates. Then consider that the Earth may be moving faster through space at one point of its orbit than the opposite point and you have them all slowing down and speeding up throughout the year.

So I guess the solar system moving and the galaxy moving affects the tick rate by direction also? While I agree the total energy available by relativity is affected the tick rate at sea level not so much. You would have that fiber cable contracting and expanding by the Earth second.

If you mean on one side of the Earth versus the other, a difference will occur, but it cannot be measured independently of a frame of reference, and you'll get a different result depending on which frame you use. If you assert that the sun is stationary, you will not measure clocks ticking more slowly on one side of the Earth than the other, but if you assert that the sun is moving, you will.

You can by sending a signal from the north or south pole to register the same simultaneity of relativity. Same with an atomic clock in the airplane relativity experiments. 12 hours at a different rate going ~1000 mph is within our ability to measure a difference.

 

If you can show that contraction of object A must occur for frame B and that object B must contract for frame A, you know that either object A or B must be contracted. Not being able to tell which of them is contracted does not overturn the necessity for one of them to be contracted. That is why it is not a faith issue - to believe that neither is contracted is to believe in the impossible.

Depending on the direction of the light an object can appear contracted or elongated. Consider your 0.5c. If light is closing on the physical object when the first photon hits the front of the object it falls off the back of the object at 2/3rds of the distance of the objects true length. No photon can travel further down the object than 2/3rds way. Why? Because when the first photon hits the rear moves forward to intercept each photon at 2/3rds the objects distance. If you add physical contraction than it becomes one half of the objects length. Now lets look at the other direction for light. The photon hits the back of the object and co-travels with the object at 0.5c. The length would appear to be twice the objects physical length.

Can you have physical and visual contraction to have the math work?

The contraction of the cable round the Earth does not reduce the distance the light has to travel to complete a circuit.

Are you suggesting light travels at different speeds in a contracted and non contracted direction? I can understand the closing and chasing directions for the mirror but if you add a change in the SoL I am not going to be a fan of that model.

The contraction of the MMX arm does have an effect though on the time taken for light to get along it and back because it reduces the distance to the mirror (which is the only thing that can bounce the light back).

Time and distance is c. Dilated time slowing tick rate by increased distance between energy particles in GR is a fractal change. SR is not a fractal change (speed by distance acceleration gravity vs. stationary attraction gravity). SR is distance through space energy independent of the object producing the light wave.

That contraction is the only thing that can adjust the tick rate for that path to keep it in sync with the perpendicular one.

Yes that is the only thing for your model. You are unwilling to challenge that model. I understand.

Particle accelerators have already proved it through relativistic mass. Circular orbits must length contract on all scales.

You believe relativistic mass increases with speed while not really understanding the cause of gravity. You believe the increase in gravity is the increase in mass. While the truth is the increase in gravity is the decrease in energy available to the particle.

Consider a BH. A sun grows to the point where the attraction on the surface of the sun becomes the speed of light. Energy can no longer keep atoms apart. They coalesce to the center removing all energy from the interior. There is no gradient to the center as gravity. The entire BH is a gravity particle. So it is the evacuation of energy that causes attraction of mass. Same thing with dilation of energy to the center of mass causing gravity. Energy is more dilated  the center of mass. Decreases tick rate because of distance between energy particles increases. The photon is confounded by those distances to measure the same speed of light. That is the fractal arrangement in GR.

There is much more going on than the simplistic model you perceive.

[guest4091]

If there's length-contraction acting on it

The coin is not moving in the example. It's only intended to show that images are not a property of the objects.

[David Cooper]

So I guess the solar system moving and the galaxy moving affects the tick rate by direction also? While I agree the total energy available by relativity is affected the tick rate at sea level not so much. You would have that fiber cable contracting and expanding by the Earth second.

Movement of the sun and the galaxy will lead to changes in contraction at any point on the Earth's surface as the Earth rotates unless it's at the poles, but the sun isn't guaranteed to have moved unless we wait millions of years. We only have to wait a few weeks or months to guarantee that the Earth has moved though, which is why it's the Earth's orbit round the sun that's most important as it guarantees that the rate at which clocks at sea level cannot be ticking at the same rate as each other other than on average over a full rotation of the Earth.

If a planet could rotate at such a speed that a point on its surface moved at 0.866c relative to the centre and if that planet could remain spherical, it would take twice as much cable to stretch round the equator than to make a loop round over the poles. If in addition to that the planet is moving along at 0.866c on the same plane as the equator, on one side of the planet the equatorial cable will be uncontracted while on the opposite side it will be contracted three and a half times as much as the average contraction on the loop (and the surface of the Earth will have the same contraction acting on it in the same places). A clock sitting at any point on the equatorial loop will likewise vary in its ticking rate, sometimes ticking twice as often as the average and at other times ticking three and a half times slower than average. But if you analyse it from the frame of reference in which the planet is stationary, you won't detect any of that variation at all.

If you mean on one side of the Earth versus the other, a difference will occur, but it cannot be measured independently of a frame of reference, and you'll get a different result depending on which frame you use. If you assert that the sun is stationary, you will not measure clocks ticking more slowly on one side of the Earth than the other, but if you assert that the sun is moving, you will.

You can by sending a signal from the north or south pole to register the same simultaneity of relativity. Same with an atomic clock in the airplane relativity experiments. 12 hours at a different rate going ~1000 mph is within our ability to measure a difference.

You can what? What ever you're trying to do, it won't work - you'll calculate different things happening (in terms of what is contracting how much) depending on which frame of reference you base your calculation on.

Depending on the direction of the light an object can appear contracted or elongated. Consider your 0.5c. If light is closing on the physical object when the first photon hits the front of the object it falls off the back of the object at 2/3rds of the distance of the objects true length. No photon can travel further down the object than 2/3rds way. Why? Because when the first photon hits the rear moves forward to intercept each photon at 2/3rds the objects distance. If you add physical contraction than it becomes one half of the objects length. Now lets look at the other direction for light. The photon hits the back of the object and co-travels with the object at 0.5c. The length would appear to be twice the objects physical length.

If you measure length using a ruler which is co-moving with the thing it's measuring, the ruler will contract the same amount as the thing it's measuring, so that's no use. If you do it with a series of observers who are all moving past the object with timers and who will look to see if they are at one of the ends of the object when the timers reach a certain count value, you will have two of them report back that their timer timed out when an end of the object was passing them, and the distance between those two observers will be less than the length of the object that would be measured for it by a ruler that's co-moving with it (regardless of which direction the array of observers are passing the object in) - the synchronisation of their clocks (done on the basis that they aren't moving) will guarantee this. If you do it instead by moving past the object and timing how long it takes you to pass it, your clock will tick at different rates for each direction and will cancel out any difference in length, giving you the same length each way, and in both directions it will give you the same figure for the object's length, again less than the length measured by the co-moving ruler. A photon has no clock to do any such timing with as its functionality is frozen, so it can't measure any length at all.

Can you have physical and visual contraction to have the math work?

If you want to take a model of some of the the universe's content and produce images from it which look like the ones people in that universe would see, you have to have a model that applies length contraction and which takes into account the time it takes for light to get from each part of each object to the observer's eye. If you don't have physical length contraction in the model, it will produce warped images that don't look like the ones people in the real universe see, and the MMX in that model would also fail to produce a null result.

The contraction of the cable round the Earth does not reduce the distance the light has to travel to complete a circuit.

Are you suggesting light travels at different speeds in a contracted and non contracted direction? I can understand the closing and chasing directions for the mirror but if you add a change in the SoL I am not going to be a fan of that model.

The light doesn't care if the cable is contracted or not - it moves through space at c. (There is a slight slowing of it by the material of the cable, but we can show this to be an irrelevance by increasing the rotation speed so that any impact it has on the result isn't worth considering.) Likewise, the light doesn't care if the arm is contracted, but it will bounce back sooner if it's contracted because it won't have so far to go to reach the mirror. With the cable round the Earth, no amount of contraction can make the light go less distance to complete a circuit as the physical distance the light travels through space is not affected by that contraction.

Time and distance is c. Dilated time slowing tick rate by increased distance between energy particles in GR is a fractal change. SR is not a fractal change (speed by distance acceleration gravity vs. stationary attraction gravity). SR is distance through space energy independent of the object producing the light wave.

Unintelligible waffle.

That contraction is the only thing that can adjust the tick rate for that path to keep it in sync with the perpendicular one.

Yes that is the only thing for your model. You are unwilling to challenge that model. I understand.

I will not replace a working model with a dysfunctional one which depends on magic to fix its monumental failures.

You believe relativistic mass increases with speed while not really understanding the cause of gravity. You believe the increase in gravity is the increase in mass. While the truth is the increase in gravity is the decrease in energy available to the particle.

It isn't about gravity - it's about the way when you add energy into a moving object, not all of it converts into extra speed. The faster the object moves, the smaller the increase in speed as you add more energy to it such that it can never reach c. The pattern in which this happens requires a circular orbit to contract into an elliptical one as the system moves faster through space, and it is this that dictates the maths of length-contraction.

Consider a BH. A sun grows to the point where the attraction on the surface of the sun becomes the speed of light. Energy can no longer keep atoms apart. They coalesce to the center removing all energy from the interior. There is no gradient to the center as gravity. The entire BH is a gravity particle. So it is the evacuation of energy that causes attraction of mass. Same thing with dilation of energy to the center of mass causing gravity. Energy is more dilated  the center of mass. Decreases tick rate because of distance between energy particles increases. The photon is confounded by those distances to measure the same speed of light. That is the fractal arrangement in GR.

With a black hole, all the energy is in there too - it has not been removed, but none of that has anything to do with the price of fish.

There is much more going on than the simplistic model you perceive.

There is certainly more to the universe than relativity, but if we're discussing relativity and are looking at an area where gravity is irrelevant, we don't need to drift away from the subject unless the aim is to obfuscate things. A fuzzy model which doesn't have length-contraction is certainly not superior to a simple model that does have it because it's the latter model that fits the real universe.

[David Cooper]

If there's length-contraction acting on it

The coin is not moving in the example. It's only intended to show that images are not a property of the objects.

So what are you trying to say by bringing that into this discussion? If the coin is stationary and some observers see it as elliptical either because they're looking at it from an angle that makes it look elliptical or because they're moving past it at a high speed that makes it appear length-contracted, those observers are not seeing the true shape of the coin. If the coin is moving though, those observers who see it as round are not seeing the true shape of the coin, and many observers who see it as elliptical may not be seeing its true shape either. Everyone knows that they need to correct for visual distortions to see the true shape, but they also know that they can never know that they're seeing the true shape because they cannot tell if the coin is moving.