Relativity Linear Thread

[Michael V]

Goldminer, Aardwolf,

If the receding part of one cycle gets viewed along with the approaching part of another cycle, who can tell?

I think you can tell, because one star is on the left and the other is on the right, or the other way round if you stand on your head.

If the light were emitted in pulses, the pulses will be closer together,

Stars that shine in pulses?, really?

As you have demonstrated, there is no easy way to contest the de Sitter type data. The overwhelming evidence is that the motion of the emitter does not affect the velocity of light. Photons propagate at c relative to empty space and their point of emission in cosmic empty space.

When Aardwolf gets his spaceship and conducts this experiment he will find that the laser pulse arrives at Y, because the light is travelling through space independently of the "material source body", i.e. the emitter.


I am not in 100% agreement with everything this chap has to say, but his description of light propagation is in very close accord with my own and perhaps he explains it a little better than I have so far managed to do. http://relativityoflight.com/Chapter22.html
In particular, I am not aware of any evidence that shows conclusively that a single photon event propagates spherically. Most light sources that we are familiar with emit multiple photons. Even the tiniest spark is thousands if not millions of photons. I am not entirely against the possibility of spherical emission, but I am presently more inclined to think of photons as a uni-directional "bullet". I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.

On further consideration, the spherical emission is probably a non-starter. You may disagree, but do you have evidence and/or logical reasoning?

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer, Aardwolf,

If the receding part of one cycle gets viewed along with the approaching part of another cycle, who can tell?

I think you can tell, because one star is on the left and the other is on the right, or the other way round if you stand on your head.

No, you are wrong again. The receding star is always on one side and the approaching star is always on the other. Each star alternately becomes the receding star and when it is receding, it is always receding on the same side of the approaching star. On the half cycle the receding star on the left is A, on the last part of the cycle, B is receding on the left.

If the light were emitted in pulses, the pulses will be closer together,

Stars that shine in pulses?, really?

Wrong yet again. Do you have some sort of brain impediment? I said "If." In discussing any of this Einsteinian clutter, one becomes confused about where the light pulse/ "photon" is when thinking of a continuous train of waves/"photons". How many times have I explained this? If you think I am wrong about this, explain how you think I am wrong.

As you have demonstrated, there is no easy way to contest the de Sitter type data. The overwhelming evidence is that the motion of the emitter does not affect the velocity of light. Photons propagate at c relative to empty space and their point of emission in cosmic empty space.

What I explained is that the view is ambiguous. Without seeing the same photos he used, I will not capitulate. The overwhelming evidence is that light propagates at c, spherically away from an unaccelerated source, centered upon the source. A light pulse from a relativistically moving source has never been measured over a one-way speed trap, unless you want to count the radar ranging experiments of the planets, in which case the only logical interpretation of the data was that the speed is c+v approaching, and c-v receding.

spaceship 1.jpg

When Aardwolf gets his spaceship and conducts this experiment he will find that the laser pulse arrives at Y, because the light is travelling through space independently of the "material source body", i.e. the emitter.

So far you have a perfect record of being wrong. He will find that the laser beam will hit the far side of the ship at a spot directly opposite the beam coming out the end of the laser. It will not angle away from the collinear end of the laser, regardless of how fast any other matter may be going.

I am not in 100% agreement with everything this chap has to say, but his description of light propagation is in very close accord with my own and perhaps he explains it a little better than I have so far managed to do. http://relativityoflight.com/Chapter22.html

If that's the case, good luck to the pair of you. For about the fifth time I will explain to you that it is only in the at rest with the source frame, where all detectors are fixed with respect to the source, that no Doppler shift is detected in the spectrum of the source. If the speed of light is the same at all detectors, then it is c for all of them in the at rest with the source frame. You and your buddy leave this fact out of your "theory." That makes it incomplete, eh?

In particular, I am not aware of any evidence that shows conclusively that a single photon event propagates spherically. Most light sources that we are familiar with emit multiple photons. Even the tiniest spark is thousands if not millions of photons. I am not entirely against the possibility of spherical emission, but I am presently more inclined to think of photons as a uni-directional "bullet". I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.

On further consideration, the spherical emission is probably a non-starter. You may disagree, but do you have evidence and/or logical reasoning?

Michael

Why would I ever imagine that a single "photon" ever propagates "spherically?" It is a projectile, as imagined. Projectiles just travel in rectilinear motion unless acted upon by a force. The laser output is a wave. A collimated wave. The ones I work around are about 3/8ths of an inch at the laser, and about 2 1/2 feet in diameter at about a half mile. Light diverges. That is the evidence. Projectiles shouldn't diverge. Light does. That should give you a clue.

Do you have any evidence that the Sun does not emit its light in an expanding sphere? Are you listening to what you say?

[Goldminer]

Light propagates away from a source in an ever expanding spherical wavefront. Part of the sphere can be blocked, which creates a shadow. The sphere can be focused into a beam, or part of it can be reflected. The simplest way to establish the spherical nature of light propagation is to examine a light pulse. This is because a continuously emitted radiation is impossible to measure the delay from emission to detection. The center of the expanding sphere is the source. This is because the speed of light in the source frame is not direction dependent and has been measured to be isotropic..

If you doubt the above statements you need to do more research. If you can disprove any of the above with an actual experiment, please let me know!

[Goldminer]

Light propagates away from a source in an ever expanding spherical wavefront. Part of the sphere can be blocked, which creates a shadow. The sphere can be focused into a beam, or part of it can be reflected. The simplest way to establish the spherical nature of light propagation is to examine a light pulse. This is because a continuously emitted radiation is impossible to measure the delay from emission to detection. The center of the expanding sphere is the source. This is because the speed of light in the source frame is not direction dependent and has been measured to be isotropic..

If you doubt the above statements you need to do more research. If you can disprove any of the above with an actual experiment, please let me know!

Hmmm. No response.

Silence is aquessence.

Download and read this essay. It describes an experiment that can actually be done. The diagonal is delineated by the fleet of detectors, each simultaneously arriving at the respective at rest with the source detector in a given coordinate system having relative motion with it.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Yes, I have read the essay. I am still not convinced by your insistence that detectors are necessary for a successful thought experiment.

The Sun may emit spherically, but that it is hardly a good example of "light" emission from a single solitary electron. To say that electrons emit spherically without any attempt at reasoning is a sign of a belief system. You have started from a light propagating aethereal medium of your choice and worked backwards. It may have still been possible to contrive a detailed theory of electron "light" emission that is spherical, but you will not achieve this by means of a waving aether. Mechanical restrictions do not allow it. Any oscillating motion requires a set of opposing forces. Declaring that the ability to "wave" is an intrinsic property of the aether with no further explanation is insufficient.

I will agree that the light clock is nonsense. If it is constructed such that the light beam moves diagonal between moving mirrors, then its path of travel is longer and it is no longer an accurate clock. To assert that inaccurately measuring time can affect the speed of light or the rate at which reality is experienced is quite preposterous. Einstein was of course attempting to construct a theory made from the rectilinear motion of matter and to support Maxwell's electromagnetic light fantasy. Neither of which is a valid description of reality.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Yes, I have read the essay. I am still not convinced by your insistence that detectors are necessary for a successful thought experiment.

Read it again, the detectors form the diagonal. There is no diagonal going "photon." Read David's post. Einstein did not determine where the pulse would be, he just got caught up in his "clock" bs.

The Sun may emit spherically, but that it is hardly a good example of "light" emission from a single solitary electron. To say that electrons emit spherically without any attempt at reasoning is a sign of a belief system. You have started from a light propagating aethereal medium of your choice and worked backwards. It may have still been possible to contrive a detailed theory of electron "light" emission that is spherical, but you will not achieve this by means of a waving aether. Mechanical restrictions do not allow it. Any oscillating motion requires a set of opposing forces. Declaring that the ability to "wave" is an intrinsic property of the aether with no further explanation is insufficient.

The aether doesn't wave. I never said electrons emit spherically. Dipoles have a heart shaped pattern of emission. Enough of them emitting in random directions produce a spherical emission. Einstein, riding his ray of light would see nothing of it. (I had to remove two of my diagrams because of forum constraints, one of which is the Einstein riding his ray diagram.)

I will agree that the light clock is nonsense. If it is constructed such that the light beam moves diagonal between moving mirrors, then its path of travel is longer and it is no longer an accurate clock. To assert that inaccurately measuring time can affect the speed of light or the rate at which reality is experienced is quite preposterous.l

It is not a matter of construction. The pulse of light only travels rectilinearly in the "at rest with the source" reference frame. I show it being detected at each foot/nanosecond of its travel. The speed of all other reference frames is the speed of them. No Einstein factor need be added to modify said speed. The positions of the detectors in these "moving" reference frames depend upon which direction they approach the rectilinear path of the bouncing pulse. In the transverse approach, the pattern is a zigzag. In the axis of the bouncing light pulse, the detectors in the "moving" reference frame are spaced out, or "compressed" in relation to their own origin.

In short: there is no diagonal going "photon," and no shrinking or expanding space and time.

Einstein was of course attempting to construct a theory made from the rectilinear motion of matter and to support Maxwell's electromagnetic light fantasy. Neither of which is a valid description of reality. Michael

In your dreams. Einstein was attempting to reconcile the earlier through the lens darkly inkling his predecessors had of the positions detectors have in the "moving reference frame" explained above. To understand the situation, the radiation from the emitter must be considered in the "Galilean Transformation." No one has apparently added the radiation to the graph before.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

I never said electrons emit spherically.

Fair enough.

Dipoles have a heart shaped pattern of emission

What exactly do you define as a "dipole"? and in what way do you relate that concept to a single electron?
Can you detail the "heart shaped pattern of emission" idea.? By what reasoning do you come by this statement?

Einstein was of course attempting to construct a theory made from the rectilinear motion of matter and to support Maxwell's electromagnetic light fantasy. Neither of which is a valid description of reality.

As in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". He misinterpreted electrodynamics as "laws of physics" and he made the simplistic assumption that matter moves in straight lines, which it does not and can not. He was attempting to ensure that the speed of light complied with the principle of relativity, rather than ensuring that the principle of relativity complied with the speed of light.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

I never said electrons emit spherically.

Fair enough.

Dipoles have a heart shaped pattern of emission

What exactly do you define as a "dipole"? and in what way do you relate that concept to a single electron?
Can you detail the "heart shaped pattern of emission" idea.? By what reasoning do you come by this statement?

The data. (Whenever I don't know something, I try to find out on my own, so as to not reveal my ignorance. Why don't you try the same philosophy? I've suggested you do this, in other posts. Have you forgotten how to search the internet?) (hint: the shape is called a cardioid, and electrons are dipole.)

Einstein was of course attempting to construct a theory made from the rectilinear motion of matter and to support Maxwell's electromagnetic light fantasy. Neither of which is a valid description of reality, as in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". He misinterpreted electrodynamics as "laws of physics" and he made the simplistic assumption that matter moves in straight lines, which it does not and can not. He was attempting to ensure that the speed of light complied with the principle of relativity, rather than ensuring that the principle of relativity complied with the speed of light.

Michael

You have no evidence to support this reasoning of yours. Your "everything moves helically" theory is, IMHO, a shipwreck; train wreck; whatever, of an idea. Your supposing that yours is the reason STR fails is non sequitur. There are manifold reasons STR fails; yours not included. I have explained in the "Silly Einstein" thread how observer position, not motion is the cause of differences in order of events; I have explained how the change in distance changes the "time" read on distant clocks, not naked motion. In this recent essay, I show how leaving the expanding radiation out of the "Galilean Transform" ruins Einstein's extrapolation of mathematical formulas. Not to mention the problem he creates with inventing the unnecessary "fourth dimension" axis for "time."

I have shown in the diagrams provided, that the transverse approach reference frame's placing of detectors prove there is no diagonally traveling "photon," whereas the rectilinear approach reference frame shows closely spaced detectors in the "moving with the light pulse" direction, while in the "moving against the light pulse" direction reveals a seldom referenced distantly separated set of detectors (as measured from the moving reference frame origin,) coinciding with respective "at rest with the source" detectors. It seems to me that the early pioneers of relativity mistook the closely spaced layout of detectors in the "moving reference frame" for actual length contraction.

I have a simply produced diagram of where the "moving frame" detectors align when the reference frame is moving at 45 degrees to the "at rest with the source" column of detectors; something tha Einstein would find impossible with his tensors and such. PM me if you are interested in this diagram.

(David's comments reveal that he "gets it." Your comments reveal that you don't. Sorry.

I try not to toot my own horn, but I believe my demonstrations trump your demand that we accept your constant; bold type, no less, blaring that such and such does this and that. Precession happens when a force acts on it at a given point. Suspend both ends of the gyro from a yoke, and there is no precession, the gyro may be accelerated without precession.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Precession happens when a force acts on it at a given point.

Yes. A point of force, becomes a pivot point about which it will attempt to precess.

Suspend both ends of the gyro from a yoke, and there is no precession, the gyro may be accelerated without precession.

The gyro is trying to precess about both pivot points simultaneously in opposite, and thus cancelling, directions.


Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Precession happens when a force acts on it at a given point.

Yes. A point of force, becomes a pivot point about which it will attempt to precess.

Suspend both ends of the gyro from a yoke, and there is no precession, the gyro may be accelerated without precession.

The gyro is trying to precess about both pivot points simultaneously in opposite, and thus cancelling, directions.
Michael

So if it's trying to precess, does it begin to quiver because it can't make up its mind? Does it slow down or speed up because the two "opposite going precessions" apply their force to the rotating gyro? You are being silly again. Without air friction and gravity, the bullet will travel to the target in a straight line. You can jump up and come down, spin around, stand on your head (wherever your head may be); the bullet will travel to the target in a straight line.

So, unless you can demonstrate exactly what gyros have to do with the theory of relativity, I suggest you post further comments on this topic to your "the Motion of Matter" thread. You might benefit studying up on inertia and how dipoles radiate, too.

Now that you admit that you can't see light until it "gets to your eyes," do you understand my diagrams showing the travel of the light pulse in the "at rest with the source" reference frame? If so, it is just a small leap to see where the detectors in a relativistically moving reference frame will detect the same light pulse.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

So if it's trying to precess, does it begin to quiver because it can't make up its mind? Does it slow down or speed up because the two "opposite going precessions" apply their force to the rotating gyro? You are being silly again.

My analysis is correct. Your comments are....unfortunate.

Without air friction and gravity, the bullet will travel to the target in a straight line. You can jump up and come down, spin around, stand on your head (wherever your head may be); the bullet will travel to the target in a straight line.

I wonder about the gun that fired the bullet. Might it be possible that the bullet share some motional vectors with the gun?. If the gun were on Earth, which rotates, and orbits the Sun, and travels round the galaxy, then perhaps the bullet is in some way inertially affected by the gun that fires it.

....the theory of relativity...

Which theory are you referring to? The one with Galileo's errors or the one with Einstein's errors?

Now that you admit that you can't see light until it "gets to your eyes,"

Actually you can't see the "light" until a signal arrives at and is processed by your brain/visual-cortex, but I understand what you mean.
There are several issues with the light-clock thought experiment, a lack of detectors is not really any kind of handicap for a thought experiment. The first and most glaring issue with this particular thought experiment is that the light-clock would not function as described except in an inertial frame of reference at absolute rest, of which there are none. The basic problem being that light and matter do not share inertial frames, because matter is in a constant state of acceleration and light is not inertial. Both facts of the universe that were not available to Mr. Lange.

...the detectors in a relativistically moving reference frame...

What about in a physically, and therefore constantly accelerating, moving reference frame?


Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

So if it's trying to precess, does it begin to quiver because it can't make up its mind? Does it slow down or speed up because the two "opposite going precessions" apply their force to the rotating gyro? You are being silly again.

My analysis is correct. Your comments are....unfortunate.

Yeh, right, and you are the son of the Pope, too!

Without air friction and gravity, the bullet will travel to the target in a straight line. You can jump up and come down, spin around, stand on your head (wherever your head may be); the bullet will travel to the target in a straight line.

I wonder about the gun that fired the bullet. Might it be possible that the bullet share some motional vectors with the gun?. If the gun were on Earth, which rotates, and orbits the Sun, and travels round the galaxy, then perhaps the bullet is in some way inertially[sic] affected by the gun that fires it.

Totally irrelevant drivel. Wonder all you want, it has no effect on reality. You have revealed, with your comments, that you have no concept of the meaning of Inertia. Answering your posts, and expecting you to understand is pointless.

....the theory of relativity...

Which theory are you referring to? The one with Galileo's errors or the one with Einstein's errors?

You can't figure the answer to that "question? Silly boy.

Now that you admit that you can't see light until it "gets to your eyes,"

Actually you can't see the "light" until a signal arrives at and is processed by your brain/visual-cortex, but I understand what you mean.

Which is why I used "detectors" instead of "observers." You are nit picking to make silly conversation.

There are several issues with the light-clock thought experiment, a lack of detectors is not really any kind of handicap for a thought experiment.

It damn well is a handicap for a logical thought experiment on this subject.

Detectors certainly are required if one is really interested in finding where the light pulse is at various times and places. How would you determine where they are? Do you just suppose, as you do with your new article on "motion?" You are in league with Einstein on that.

The first and most glaring issue with this particular thought experiment is that the light-clock would not function as described except in an inertial frame of reference at absolute rest, of which there are none. The basic problem being that light and matter do not share inertial frames, because matter is in a constant state of acceleration and light is not inertial. Both facts of the universe that were not available to Mr. Lange.

In your poorly thought out universe. You are going ballistic with specious silly arguments in the face of logic. C U later.

The "light clock functions" quite well. You obviously don't understand the meaning of being "at rest" with another object. I can't fight ignorance.

...the detectors in a relativistically moving reference frame...

What about in a physically, and therefore constantly accelerating, moving reference frame?
Michael

[/quote]

What about it? STR is about inertial frames. You are ignoring my whole essay in a effort to save face for your problem child.

[Goldminer]

MJV, its been over a month since you commented here. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings, but you seem insensitive to everyone else's, so I just assumed you could take a little direct criticism yourself. Maybe you are rethinking your "theory?"

[sjw40364]

As I posted in Silly Einstein, debates about clocks are useless as they ARE NOT ticking at the same rate:

This discrepency of time occurs because Einstein has fooled most people. He has convinced them that it has nothing to do with the technical nature of the clocks or the time of propagation of any signal.

It IS due to the technical nature of the clocks which GPS has proven beyond a doubt. Clocks (i.e. atoms) occilate at different rates depending on thier nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or thier acceleration. Clocks in orbit do not tick the same rate because the atoms are not ocillating at the same rate. If you are present it appears the clock has not changed because every atom in your body is also occilating at a different rate than before (consistent with the clock near you, but different than a clock situated on earth). Does anyone actually believe that the atoms in our bodies do not occilate differently depending on surounding conditions? This affects your senses (sight, etc). Clocks A and B do not agree because they are occilating at different rates. if you are near A the atoms in your body are occilating at the same change as A and so it appears to be correct while B is incorrect. If near B the opposite.

People need to stop trying to bend space and just accept the simple fact that atoms occilate at different rates depending on how they are situated with respect to others. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSTANT ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE!

[Goldminer]

As I posted in Silly Einstein, debates about clocks are useless as they ARE NOT ticking at the same rate:

This discrepency[sic] of time occurs because Einstein has fooled most people. He has convinced them that it has nothing to do with the technical nature of the clocks or the time of propagation of any signal..

If you truly believe your statement here, please supply some proof. IMHO, you seem to be confused as to exactly what Einstein did to confuse the situation.

It IS due to the technical nature of the clocks which GPS has proven beyond a doubt.

No, the doubt remains.

Clocks (i.e. atoms) occilate[sic] at different rates depending on thier[sic] nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or thier[sic] acceleration. Clocks in orbit do not tick the same rate because the atoms are not ocillating[sic] at the same rate. If you are present it appears the clock has not changed because every atom in your body is also occilating[sic] at a different rate than before (consistent with the clock near you, but different than a clock situated on earth). Does anyone actually believe that the atoms in our bodies do not occilate[sic] differently depending on surounding[sic] conditions? This affects your senses (sight, etc). Clocks A and B do not agree because they are occilating[sic] at different rates. if you are near A the atoms in your body are occilating[sic] at the same change as A and so it appears to be correct while B is incorrect. If near B the opposite.

So, where is your source for your claim that "Clocks (i.e. atoms) occilate[sic] at different rates depending on thier[sic] nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or thier[sic] acceleration?" This statement of yours, which you just keep repeating, seems to be just something you imagine to be true.

Particularly the part about: "nearness to an EM source." What do you want us to believe about that? Do you mean your cell phone? The Sun?

People need to stop trying to bend space and just accept the simple fact that atoms occilate[sic] at different rates depending on how they are situated with respect to others. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSTANT ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE!

When people begin to "shout" in all caps, I just turn the page.