Does a ray of light retain momentum imparted by the motions of its source or does it only move in a single vector at c.
Example: A distant star is moving at 100k mph from east to west relative to an observer. Do the light rays the observer sees move both at c straight into his lens and also move at 100k mph east to west or does it move only in the one vector at c?
Momentum is not equivalent to speed. A photon both moves in a single direction toward an observer at c, and has a contribution of momentum from its source. This momentum is the energy of its frequency determined by the sources relative motion to the observer. This energy has nothing to do with its speed, only its magnitude.
The vector and the scalar properties.
The vector and the scalar properties.
Synthsin75; Please pardon my delay in replying to your lesson in basic physics. I spent the last two days helping an old friend move into a new place. I have had little time to think about physics. And think is what I do. There is no contest between me and you or me and most of the others in this forum when it comes to raw knowledge. I am not a recent student of physics in a formal sense but I keep up with much of it through reading. I said raw knowledge because there is a huge difference between knowledge that is gained by mastering what is taught in college courses and knowledge that is understood by following all of the logic and history of the ideas the knowledge conveys. Many theories of physics that become popular and accepted by the bulk of the scientific community are often grossly overstated as science fact, particularly in popular media.Some of what you say can’t be argued with. Definitely momentum is not equivalent to speed. But I was not confusing that fact. The reason I indicated the speed as the same is by reasoning as Einstein did that the pebble dropped from a moving train would continue at the same forward speed as the train until gravity caused it to drop. The path of the pebble is an arc composed by the vectors of momentum and gravity. But I needn’t have mentioned any specific speed, the only question is whether the light can have any other motion than its progress at c. You have answered that; no. I agree and that is what I call a primary science theory.
I wonder if you are aware of how much speculation is contained your statement “This momentum is the energy of its frequency determined by the sources relative motion to the observer.” Your form is dogmatic. The theories supporting it are sketchy at best.
Here is a thought; If light does only move in a single vector (barring the Eddington revelations and gravity lensing) then there is no reasoning that supports the use of the Lorentz Transformations in relativity. They require light to be isolated in the specific frame of reference it was propagated in and to move with that frame in the manner of my original question.
Too much crank sentiment and superfluous exposition there for me to bother with.
Synthsin75 wrote:
How right you are! Here's the terse version.
How right you are! Here's the terse version.
Momentum is not equivalent to speed.
So true!
Single direction at c? Absolutely: Einstein 1905.
Single direction at c? Absolutely: Einstein 1905.
This momentum is the energy -----------.
Speculative Theory. Not well supported.
My thought: All Lorentz Transformation thought problems require one added vector for light that keeps the light moving with its frame. The part we agree on: (Light moves only in a single vector at c.) belies the need for Lorentz Transformation in Relativity! Given that, inductive reasoning will produce many obvious consequences.
That's total nonsense. The most basic reading in relativity would easily show that you are totally incorrect.
You have done some basic reading, haven't you?
That's total nonsense. The most basic reading in relativity would easily show that you are totally incorrect.
You have done some basic reading, haven't you?
Sonny boy, I have been reading about and studying Einstein's work in general and Special relativity in particular since about 1957. Two years after the great man died.
I was in high school. My wife finds it amusing that I have two copies of the 15th addition 'Relativity' which Einstein first published in 1916 and continued to add appendices to until the 15th addition first published in 1952. This addition is still under copyright by The Estate of Albert Einstein and available in bookstores and on line. I believe some earlier additions are copyright free and may even be free on line but they don't contain Einstein's later thoughts and concept explanations. It is in "Relativity" that he first explained Relativity and his adaptation of the Lorentz Transformations to the general public. Of course the original paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" was published in 1905 for the scientific community. It is very dull reading by comparison but I assure you I do understand it. One thing about Einstein is that he was never anything but polite in his discourse with those he had disagreements with and he didn't write people off. He had face to face one on one personal debates with his adversaries. He had personal discourse with Bohr, de Sitter, Plank and even traveled from Princeton to California with Georges Lemaitre with whom he had what some have described as a bitter dispute when Lemaitre first published his ideas that led to the "Big Bang" theory nearly all of physics is in love with today. In their later years not only were they friends, Einstein was among his biggest boosters in a very public way. I like to believe they were debating the last time they saw each other. That certainly had to be true with Bohr.
I certainly know that The Lorentz Transformations are accepted, considered "established science" and engraved on the thinking of even good High School Physics students not to mention every PhD of Physics I have ever read any works of on the subject. Does that mean it is sacred ground never to be challenged? Einstein never took that position, he always invited debate and loved challenging the status quo. He would never have been know if he didn't.
The absolute fact-ray-gun you shoot with aims at closing of debate not to engage in it. If you took the time to think a little and understand what I am saying you might agree there is something to think about. Look at a Physics text or an encyclopedia that has a graphically illustrated thought problem meant to convey how the concept of time dilation is derived and you are looking at the type of thought problem I am referring to. Think about what the beams of light the two observers are timing and think about whether you agree that what they say creates the longer path that establishes the per-force conclusion that time is dilating for the moving observer. Now in light of the fact that you know light only moves in that single vector at c, I ask you to decide if they have it right in this ubiquitous type of problem. Does each observer see it as they say she does?
It appears to be 55 wasted years.
QUOTE
Too much sentimental crank for me to bother with
How right you are! Here's the terse version.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Too much sentimental crank for me to bother with |
How right you are! Here's the terse version.
Momentum is not equivalent to speed.
So true!
QUOTE
A photon both moves in a single direction at at c, ..........
Single direction at c? Absolutely: Einstein 1905.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A photon both moves in a single direction at at c, .......... |
Single direction at c? Absolutely: Einstein 1905.
This momentum is the energy -----------.
Speculative Theory. Not well supported.
My thought: All Lorentz Transformation thought problems require one added vector for light that keeps the light moving with its frame. The part we agree on: (Light moves only in a single vector at c.) belies the need for Lorentz Transformation in Relativity! Given that, inductive reasoning will produce many obvious consequences.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 19 2012, 05:09 PM)
Synthsin75 wrote:
How right you are! Here's the terse version.
So true!
Single direction at c? Absolutely: Einstein 1905.
Speculative Theory. Not well supported.
My thought: All Lorentz Transformation thought problems require one added vector for light that keeps the light moving with its frame. The part we agree on: (Light moves only in a single vector at c.) belies the need for Lorentz Transformation in Relativity! Given that, inductive reasoning will produce many obvious consequences.
This is the relativistic energy equation in geometric units.
E^2=M^2 + p^2
p=y(mv)
So the relativistic momentum is a component of the total energy.
Choose Chapter 1 Speeding of Taylor and Wheeler text Exploring Black Holes. The energy equation derivation from constants of motion and the Principle of Extremal Aging are covered in Chapter 1 Speeding.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity
What's speculative is the bullshit you're spewing.
How right you are! Here's the terse version.
So true!
Single direction at c? Absolutely: Einstein 1905.
Speculative Theory. Not well supported.
My thought: All Lorentz Transformation thought problems require one added vector for light that keeps the light moving with its frame. The part we agree on: (Light moves only in a single vector at c.) belies the need for Lorentz Transformation in Relativity! Given that, inductive reasoning will produce many obvious consequences.
This is the relativistic energy equation in geometric units.
E^2=M^2 + p^2
p=y(mv)
So the relativistic momentum is a component of the total energy.
Choose Chapter 1 Speeding of Taylor and Wheeler text Exploring Black Holes. The energy equation derivation from constants of motion and the Principle of Extremal Aging are covered in Chapter 1 Speeding.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity
What's speculative is the bullshit you're spewing.
I may be completely wrong and what I am saying now perhaps makes meaning only to myself. It is of speculative nature and nonsupported and as such of nonscientific character. Anyhow, anyone who feels offended by pure speculations can safely ignore and jump over, and remember @Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment.@
If I understand it rightly the speed of light (in true vacuum) is the speed of the information qbit equivalent to photon. The question is about how this information qbit propagates in spacetime (and from where it gets the energy). And as far as I understand the propagation is believed to be like a trajectory from one point in space to another, bended or not depending on where observer is being placed (local or Gods Eye).
I like to see spacetime as a medium (welcome back aether) and involving absolute entanglement, and in such a way that everything being related to phenomenal physics best can be understood from bottom up. This implicate that all and any physical event being observed, measured, monitored, sensed, call it what one like, is a result of how the medium behaves when thought in all scales from deep down and upwards, and how medium behavior are being interfered with by observer. We are dealing with a mind exercise, a thought experiment.
Following my ideas as expressed in the 3D Pixel Universe (perhaps not the best name), the medium can be mind visualized (metaphorically) as how space is filled up with infinitely many scales of pixels (the equivalent of Object of Sameness in a said scale, which is the frame of observation), and where such pixels organize themselves in nearly ideal 3D lattice structures, in such a way that said lattice structures can play wavelike expressions simply by pixels signaling on off signals, like a picture on a TV screen. A signaling pixel is not moving relative to other pixels, but only reconfiguring its position relative to neighboring pixels in situ. The medium can be seen as how the wave/particle duality propagates from scale to scale.
ENERGY can fundamentally be seen as the underlying cause of change, and change can be seen as reconfigurations of pixels in situ, and scalewise expressed like in a Russian Doll structure.
The medium (Universe) becomea a kind of an (nearly) IDEAL SOLID, with reconfiguring wavelike changes (in all scales) caused by how Universe consistently strives after best overall FIT (least void or most evenly distributed vacuum).
Vacuum (distribution of ideal free void), must logically exist in order for entity/particle/pixel to exist. The concept of physical (which I define as noninstantaneous and taking a body and dynamically changing (changing wholeness according to Bohm) necessitates VOID, ENTITY, CAUSE OF CHANGE. Univese strive (my origin premise) for most evenly distributed vacuum and this is the cause of energy.
Light can be seen as reconfiguring waves in the medium, and as long as the reconfiguring wave in question is not being interfered with it will radiate as a sphere. This implicate that light is spreading evenly in all directions and not as a point to point trajectory.
Energy is of no concern, because ALL ENERGY is originating from the innermost pixels (just for simplification because pixels are diluting infinitely towards zero and never reaching zero. Energy is therefore an unlimited resource, because pixels can ALWAYS and infinitely distribute vacuum more and more evenly)
In this perspective energy is not something that is carried by a particle (mass or massless), but energy is something that is at hand or brought into play each and everytime a pixel reconfigure its position.
Popularily one can say that reconfigurations of pixels which gives rise to information, can be expressed the other way round, namely that information can be seen as the code that triggers the pixels to reconfigure, and that information is the key that unlock or release energy In Situ.
ENERGY is not being carried in a particle, what is being carried by a particle is Information. ALWAYS the other way round.
From a human observer perspective it is NOT possible to observe and measure this phenomenon, because photon IS the speed of INFORMATION (in the form of the information qbit of photon).
IMO light is therefpre NOT taking a trajectory but spreads spherically until being interfered with by mass (fermionic) structures that cause interferences.
If I understand it rightly the speed of light (in true vacuum) is the speed of the information qbit equivalent to photon. The question is about how this information qbit propagates in spacetime (and from where it gets the energy). And as far as I understand the propagation is believed to be like a trajectory from one point in space to another, bended or not depending on where observer is being placed (local or Gods Eye).
I like to see spacetime as a medium (welcome back aether) and involving absolute entanglement, and in such a way that everything being related to phenomenal physics best can be understood from bottom up. This implicate that all and any physical event being observed, measured, monitored, sensed, call it what one like, is a result of how the medium behaves when thought in all scales from deep down and upwards, and how medium behavior are being interfered with by observer. We are dealing with a mind exercise, a thought experiment.
Following my ideas as expressed in the 3D Pixel Universe (perhaps not the best name), the medium can be mind visualized (metaphorically) as how space is filled up with infinitely many scales of pixels (the equivalent of Object of Sameness in a said scale, which is the frame of observation), and where such pixels organize themselves in nearly ideal 3D lattice structures, in such a way that said lattice structures can play wavelike expressions simply by pixels signaling on off signals, like a picture on a TV screen. A signaling pixel is not moving relative to other pixels, but only reconfiguring its position relative to neighboring pixels in situ. The medium can be seen as how the wave/particle duality propagates from scale to scale.
ENERGY can fundamentally be seen as the underlying cause of change, and change can be seen as reconfigurations of pixels in situ, and scalewise expressed like in a Russian Doll structure.
The medium (Universe) becomea a kind of an (nearly) IDEAL SOLID, with reconfiguring wavelike changes (in all scales) caused by how Universe consistently strives after best overall FIT (least void or most evenly distributed vacuum).
Vacuum (distribution of ideal free void), must logically exist in order for entity/particle/pixel to exist. The concept of physical (which I define as noninstantaneous and taking a body and dynamically changing (changing wholeness according to Bohm) necessitates VOID, ENTITY, CAUSE OF CHANGE. Univese strive (my origin premise) for most evenly distributed vacuum and this is the cause of energy.
Light can be seen as reconfiguring waves in the medium, and as long as the reconfiguring wave in question is not being interfered with it will radiate as a sphere. This implicate that light is spreading evenly in all directions and not as a point to point trajectory.
Energy is of no concern, because ALL ENERGY is originating from the innermost pixels (just for simplification because pixels are diluting infinitely towards zero and never reaching zero. Energy is therefore an unlimited resource, because pixels can ALWAYS and infinitely distribute vacuum more and more evenly)
In this perspective energy is not something that is carried by a particle (mass or massless), but energy is something that is at hand or brought into play each and everytime a pixel reconfigure its position.
Popularily one can say that reconfigurations of pixels which gives rise to information, can be expressed the other way round, namely that information can be seen as the code that triggers the pixels to reconfigure, and that information is the key that unlock or release energy In Situ.
ENERGY is not being carried in a particle, what is being carried by a particle is Information. ALWAYS the other way round.
From a human observer perspective it is NOT possible to observe and measure this phenomenon, because photon IS the speed of INFORMATION (in the form of the information qbit of photon).
IMO light is therefpre NOT taking a trajectory but spreads spherically until being interfered with by mass (fermionic) structures that cause interferences.
Good question Elektroman
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 19 2012, 11:09 AM)
Speculative Theory. Not well supported.
My thought: All Lorentz Transformation thought problems require one added vector for light that keeps the light moving with its frame. The part we agree on: (Light moves only in a single vector at c.) belies the need for Lorentz Transformation in Relativity! Given that, inductive reasoning will produce many obvious consequences.
Not speculative, and not a "thought problem", as the Lorentz transforms are used all the time to predict the results of practical experiments.
And with your clear crank declaration you and Niels will have much more to discuss that will the two of us.
My thought: All Lorentz Transformation thought problems require one added vector for light that keeps the light moving with its frame. The part we agree on: (Light moves only in a single vector at c.) belies the need for Lorentz Transformation in Relativity! Given that, inductive reasoning will produce many obvious consequences.
Not speculative, and not a "thought problem", as the Lorentz transforms are used all the time to predict the results of practical experiments.
And with your clear crank declaration you and Niels will have much more to discuss that will the two of us.
QUOTE (niels+Jul 20 2012, 12:30 AM)
I may be completely wrong and what I am saying now perhaps makes meaning only to myself. It is of speculative nature and nonsupported and as such of nonscientific character. Anyhow, anyone who feels offended by pure speculations can safely ignore and jump over, and remember @Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment.@
If I understand it rightly the speed of light (in true vacuum) is the speed of the information qbit equivalent to photon. The question is about how this information qbit propagates in spacetime (and from where it gets the energy). And as far as I understand the propagation is believed to be like a trajectory from one point in space to another, bended or not depending on where observer is being placed (local or Gods Eye).
I like to see spacetime as a medium (welcome back aether) and involving absolute entanglement, and in such a way that everything being related to phenomenal physics best can be understood from bottom up. This implicate that all and any physical event being observed, measured, monitored, sensed, call it what one like, is a result of how the medium behaves when thought in all scales from deep down and upwards, and how medium behavior are being interfered with by observer. We are dealing with a mind exercise, a thought experiment.
Following my ideas as expressed in the 3D Pixel Universe (perhaps not the best name), the medium can be mind visualized (metaphorically) as how space is filled up with infinitely many scales of pixels (the equivalent of Object of Sameness in a said scale, which is the frame of observation), and where such pixels organize themselves in nearly ideal 3D lattice structures, in such a way that said lattice structures can play wavelike expressions simply by pixels signaling on off signals, like a picture on a TV screen. A signaling pixel is not moving relative to other pixels, but only reconfiguring its position relative to neighboring pixels in situ. The medium can be seen as how the wave/particle duality propagates from scale to scale.
ENERGY can fundamentally be seen as the underlying cause of change, and change can be seen as reconfigurations of pixels in situ, and scalewise expressed like in a Russian Doll structure.
The medium (Universe) becomea a kind of an (nearly) IDEAL SOLID, with reconfiguring wavelike changes (in all scales) caused by how Universe consistently strives after best overall FIT (least void or most evenly distributed vacuum).
Vacuum (distribution of ideal free void), must logically exist in order for entity/particle/pixel to exist. The concept of physical (which I define as noninstantaneous and taking a body and dynamically changing (changing wholeness according to Bohm) necessitates VOID, ENTITY, CAUSE OF CHANGE. Univese strive (my origin premise) for most evenly distributed vacuum and this is the cause of energy.
Light can be seen as reconfiguring waves in the medium, and as long as the reconfiguring wave in question is not being interfered with it will radiate as a sphere. This implicate that light is spreading evenly in all directions and not as a point to point trajectory.
Energy is of no concern, because ALL ENERGY is originating from the innermost pixels (just for simplification because pixels are diluting infinitely towards zero and never reaching zero. Energy is therefore an unlimited resource, because pixels can ALWAYS and infinitely distribute vacuum more and more evenly)
In this perspective energy is not something that is carried by a particle (mass or massless), but energy is something that is at hand or brought into play each and everytime a pixel reconfigure its position.
Popularily one can say that reconfigurations of pixels which gives rise to information, can be expressed the other way round, namely that information can be seen as the code that triggers the pixels to reconfigure, and that information is the key that unlock or release energy In Situ.
ENERGY is not being carried in a particle, what is being carried by a particle is Information. ALWAYS the other way round.
From a human observer perspective it is NOT possible to observe and measure this phenomenon, because photon IS the speed of INFORMATION (in the form of the information qbit of photon).
IMO light is therefpre NOT taking a trajectory but spreads spherically until being interfered with by mass (fermionic) structures that cause interferences.
Apparently you also like to look like a complete nitwit. Sock Puppet.
If I understand it rightly the speed of light (in true vacuum) is the speed of the information qbit equivalent to photon. The question is about how this information qbit propagates in spacetime (and from where it gets the energy). And as far as I understand the propagation is believed to be like a trajectory from one point in space to another, bended or not depending on where observer is being placed (local or Gods Eye).
I like to see spacetime as a medium (welcome back aether) and involving absolute entanglement, and in such a way that everything being related to phenomenal physics best can be understood from bottom up. This implicate that all and any physical event being observed, measured, monitored, sensed, call it what one like, is a result of how the medium behaves when thought in all scales from deep down and upwards, and how medium behavior are being interfered with by observer. We are dealing with a mind exercise, a thought experiment.
Following my ideas as expressed in the 3D Pixel Universe (perhaps not the best name), the medium can be mind visualized (metaphorically) as how space is filled up with infinitely many scales of pixels (the equivalent of Object of Sameness in a said scale, which is the frame of observation), and where such pixels organize themselves in nearly ideal 3D lattice structures, in such a way that said lattice structures can play wavelike expressions simply by pixels signaling on off signals, like a picture on a TV screen. A signaling pixel is not moving relative to other pixels, but only reconfiguring its position relative to neighboring pixels in situ. The medium can be seen as how the wave/particle duality propagates from scale to scale.
ENERGY can fundamentally be seen as the underlying cause of change, and change can be seen as reconfigurations of pixels in situ, and scalewise expressed like in a Russian Doll structure.
The medium (Universe) becomea a kind of an (nearly) IDEAL SOLID, with reconfiguring wavelike changes (in all scales) caused by how Universe consistently strives after best overall FIT (least void or most evenly distributed vacuum).
Vacuum (distribution of ideal free void), must logically exist in order for entity/particle/pixel to exist. The concept of physical (which I define as noninstantaneous and taking a body and dynamically changing (changing wholeness according to Bohm) necessitates VOID, ENTITY, CAUSE OF CHANGE. Univese strive (my origin premise) for most evenly distributed vacuum and this is the cause of energy.
Light can be seen as reconfiguring waves in the medium, and as long as the reconfiguring wave in question is not being interfered with it will radiate as a sphere. This implicate that light is spreading evenly in all directions and not as a point to point trajectory.
Energy is of no concern, because ALL ENERGY is originating from the innermost pixels (just for simplification because pixels are diluting infinitely towards zero and never reaching zero. Energy is therefore an unlimited resource, because pixels can ALWAYS and infinitely distribute vacuum more and more evenly)
In this perspective energy is not something that is carried by a particle (mass or massless), but energy is something that is at hand or brought into play each and everytime a pixel reconfigure its position.
Popularily one can say that reconfigurations of pixels which gives rise to information, can be expressed the other way round, namely that information can be seen as the code that triggers the pixels to reconfigure, and that information is the key that unlock or release energy In Situ.
ENERGY is not being carried in a particle, what is being carried by a particle is Information. ALWAYS the other way round.
From a human observer perspective it is NOT possible to observe and measure this phenomenon, because photon IS the speed of INFORMATION (in the form of the information qbit of photon).
IMO light is therefpre NOT taking a trajectory but spreads spherically until being interfered with by mass (fermionic) structures that cause interferences.
Apparently you also like to look like a complete nitwit. Sock Puppet.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 20 2012, 02:57 AM)
Apparently you also like to look like a complete nitwit. Sock Puppet.
Well well, You give me the impression that what I am saying makes no sense to You, no big deal.
Well well, You give me the impression that what I am saying makes no sense to You, no big deal.
bukh, nothing you've ever posted has made any sense.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 20 2012, 02:10 AM)
Not speculative, and not a "thought problem", as the Lorentz transforms are used all the time to predict the results of practical experiments.
And with your clear crank declaration you and Niels will have much more to discuss that will the two of us.
I was not referring to the relativistic energy with my thought. That is about thought problems that require Lorentz Translations to illustrate Einsteins concepts in special Relativity.
The math you cite is the accepted math for the theory you believe but it does not make the theory true no matter how many people believe it. There is no observation that supports it.
And with your clear crank declaration you and Niels will have much more to discuss that will the two of us.
I was not referring to the relativistic energy with my thought. That is about thought problems that require Lorentz Translations to illustrate Einsteins concepts in special Relativity.
The math you cite is the accepted math for the theory you believe but it does not make the theory true no matter how many people believe it. There is no observation that supports it.
[QUOTE=niels,Jul 20 2012, 12:30 AM] I may be completely wrong and what I am saying now perhaps makes meaning only to myself. It is of speculative nature and nonsupported and as such of nonscientific character. Anyhow, anyone who feels offended by pure speculations can safely ignore and jump over, and remember @Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment.@
If I understand it rightly the speed of light (in true vacuum) is the speed of the information qbit equivalent to photon. The question is about how this information qbit propagates in spacetime (and from where it gets the energy). And as far as I understand the propagation is believed to be like a trajectory from one point in space to another, bended or not depending on where observer is being placed (local or Gods Eye). etc.
Sorry, I can't find anything in your rant that pertains to my question.
If I understand it rightly the speed of light (in true vacuum) is the speed of the information qbit equivalent to photon. The question is about how this information qbit propagates in spacetime (and from where it gets the energy). And as far as I understand the propagation is believed to be like a trajectory from one point in space to another, bended or not depending on where observer is being placed (local or Gods Eye). etc.
Sorry, I can't find anything in your rant that pertains to my question.
QUOTE
There is no observation that supports it.
That's total nonsense. The most basic reading in relativity would easily show that you are totally incorrect.
You have done some basic reading, haven't you?
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 20 2012, 07:39 AM)
That's total nonsense. The most basic reading in relativity would easily show that you are totally incorrect.
You have done some basic reading, haven't you?
Sonny boy, I have been reading about and studying Einstein's work in general and Special relativity in particular since about 1957. Two years after the great man died.
I was in high school. My wife finds it amusing that I have two copies of the 15th addition 'Relativity' which Einstein first published in 1916 and continued to add appendices to until the 15th addition first published in 1952. This addition is still under copyright by The Estate of Albert Einstein and available in bookstores and on line. I believe some earlier additions are copyright free and may even be free on line but they don't contain Einstein's later thoughts and concept explanations. It is in "Relativity" that he first explained Relativity and his adaptation of the Lorentz Transformations to the general public. Of course the original paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" was published in 1905 for the scientific community. It is very dull reading by comparison but I assure you I do understand it. One thing about Einstein is that he was never anything but polite in his discourse with those he had disagreements with and he didn't write people off. He had face to face one on one personal debates with his adversaries. He had personal discourse with Bohr, de Sitter, Plank and even traveled from Princeton to California with Georges Lemaitre with whom he had what some have described as a bitter dispute when Lemaitre first published his ideas that led to the "Big Bang" theory nearly all of physics is in love with today. In their later years not only were they friends, Einstein was among his biggest boosters in a very public way. I like to believe they were debating the last time they saw each other. That certainly had to be true with Bohr.
I certainly know that The Lorentz Transformations are accepted, considered "established science" and engraved on the thinking of even good High School Physics students not to mention every PhD of Physics I have ever read any works of on the subject. Does that mean it is sacred ground never to be challenged? Einstein never took that position, he always invited debate and loved challenging the status quo. He would never have been know if he didn't.
The absolute fact-ray-gun you shoot with aims at closing of debate not to engage in it. If you took the time to think a little and understand what I am saying you might agree there is something to think about. Look at a Physics text or an encyclopedia that has a graphically illustrated thought problem meant to convey how the concept of time dilation is derived and you are looking at the type of thought problem I am referring to. Think about what the beams of light the two observers are timing and think about whether you agree that what they say creates the longer path that establishes the per-force conclusion that time is dilating for the moving observer. Now in light of the fact that you know light only moves in that single vector at c, I ask you to decide if they have it right in this ubiquitous type of problem. Does each observer see it as they say she does?
QUOTE (niels+Jul 20 2012, 06:34 AM)
Well well, You give me the impression that what I am saying makes no sense to You, no big deal.
I said you're a nitwit solipsist sock puppet of the nitwit solipsist bukh. Nothing you say is remotely interesting for this subject matter. Take your 3D pixel nonsense and shove it where the sun don't shine. Since 3D pixel nonsense = nothing your fat a$$ is safe.
I said you're a nitwit solipsist sock puppet of the nitwit solipsist bukh. Nothing you say is remotely interesting for this subject matter. Take your 3D pixel nonsense and shove it where the sun don't shine. Since 3D pixel nonsense = nothing your fat a$$ is safe.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 20 2012, 03:45 PM)
Sonny boy, I have been reading about and studying Einstein's work in general and Special relativity in particular since about 1957. Two years after the great man died.
I was in high school. My wife finds it amusing that I have two copies of the 15th addition 'Relativity' which Einstein first published in 1916 and continued to add appendices to until the 15th addition first published in 1952. This addition is still under copyright by The Estate of Albert Einstein and available in bookstores and on line. I believe some earlier additions are copyright free and may even be free on line but they don't contain Einstein's later thoughts and concept explanations. It is in "Relativity" that he first explained Relativity and his adaptation of the Lorentz Transformations to the general public. Of course the original paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" was published in 1905 for the scientific community. It is very dull reading by comparison but I assure you I do understand it. One thing about Einstein is that he was never anything but polite in his discourse with those he had disagreements with and he didn't write people off. He had face to face one on one personal debates with his adversaries. He had personal discourse with Bohr, de Sitter, Plank and even traveled from Princeton to California with Georges Lemaitre with whom he had what some have described as a bitter dispute when Lemaitre first published his ideas that led to the "Big Bang" theory nearly all of physics is in love with today. In their later years not only were they friends, Einstein was among his biggest boosters in a very public way. I like to believe they were debating the last time they saw each other. That certainly had to be true with Bohr.
I certainly know that The Lorentz Transformations are accepted, considered "established science" and engraved on the thinking of even good High School Physics students not to mention every PhD of Physics I have ever read any works of on the subject. Does that mean it is sacred ground never to be challenged? Einstein never took that position, he always invited debate and loved challenging the status quo. He would never have been know if he didn't.
The absolute fact-ray-gun you shoot with aims at closing of debate not to engage in it. If you took the time to think a little and understand what I am saying you might agree there is something to think about. Look at a Physics text or an encyclopedia that has a graphically illustrated thought problem meant to convey how the concept of time dilation is derived and you are looking at the type of thought problem I am referring to. Think about what the beams of light the two observers are timing and think about whether you agree that what they say creates the longer path that establishes the per-force conclusion that time is dilating for the moving observer. Now in light of the fact that you know light only moves in that single vector at c, I ask you to decide if they have it right in this ubiquitous type of problem. Does each observer see it as they say she does?
So after 55 years of study you don't even know the relativistic energy equation. You ignored the one post which offered to fix that. Mine. What else is new?
I was in high school. My wife finds it amusing that I have two copies of the 15th addition 'Relativity' which Einstein first published in 1916 and continued to add appendices to until the 15th addition first published in 1952. This addition is still under copyright by The Estate of Albert Einstein and available in bookstores and on line. I believe some earlier additions are copyright free and may even be free on line but they don't contain Einstein's later thoughts and concept explanations. It is in "Relativity" that he first explained Relativity and his adaptation of the Lorentz Transformations to the general public. Of course the original paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" was published in 1905 for the scientific community. It is very dull reading by comparison but I assure you I do understand it. One thing about Einstein is that he was never anything but polite in his discourse with those he had disagreements with and he didn't write people off. He had face to face one on one personal debates with his adversaries. He had personal discourse with Bohr, de Sitter, Plank and even traveled from Princeton to California with Georges Lemaitre with whom he had what some have described as a bitter dispute when Lemaitre first published his ideas that led to the "Big Bang" theory nearly all of physics is in love with today. In their later years not only were they friends, Einstein was among his biggest boosters in a very public way. I like to believe they were debating the last time they saw each other. That certainly had to be true with Bohr.
I certainly know that The Lorentz Transformations are accepted, considered "established science" and engraved on the thinking of even good High School Physics students not to mention every PhD of Physics I have ever read any works of on the subject. Does that mean it is sacred ground never to be challenged? Einstein never took that position, he always invited debate and loved challenging the status quo. He would never have been know if he didn't.
The absolute fact-ray-gun you shoot with aims at closing of debate not to engage in it. If you took the time to think a little and understand what I am saying you might agree there is something to think about. Look at a Physics text or an encyclopedia that has a graphically illustrated thought problem meant to convey how the concept of time dilation is derived and you are looking at the type of thought problem I am referring to. Think about what the beams of light the two observers are timing and think about whether you agree that what they say creates the longer path that establishes the per-force conclusion that time is dilating for the moving observer. Now in light of the fact that you know light only moves in that single vector at c, I ask you to decide if they have it right in this ubiquitous type of problem. Does each observer see it as they say she does?
So after 55 years of study you don't even know the relativistic energy equation. You ignored the one post which offered to fix that. Mine. What else is new?
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 19 2012, 09:57 PM)
This is the relativistic energy equation in geometric units.
E^2=M^2 + p^2
p=y(mv)
So the relativistic momentum is a component of the total energy.
Choose Chapter 1 Speeding of Taylor and Wheeler text Exploring Black Holes. The energy equation derivation from constants of motion and the Principle of Extremal Aging are covered in Chapter 1 Speeding.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity
What's speculative is the bullshit you're spewing.
I didn't mean to skip you or ignore you. I included part of my answer to you in another post. But you deserve a direct answer. My 55 years of reading has always allowed me to think and reason outside the influence of the dogmatic expressions of theories that often routinely state theories as fact. Your (I'll show you how goddamn stupid you are) approach is not conducive to debate. I am aware of the equation you are so proud of and many others that are standard in physics. But I don't need to repeatedly recite it or even commit it to memory because all such equations are easy to access when you need them. I don't need to do the math over and over again to deal with the concepts they refer to. The other thing is that this is an aside that is peripheral to my question and it was synthsin75 who brought it up. I am capable of discussing at length my reason for regarding the whole idea the equation refers to as unproven but that is a discussion best dealt with in another post. Perhaps you would like to start one. To paraphrase my original question and perhaps make it more clear: "Does a ray of light (or any EM ray) move (for any reason) in any other additional vector other than its motion at c." I am not talking about the effects of divergence or gravity. And that my friend, the whole point of my post, is the one you ignored
E^2=M^2 + p^2
p=y(mv)
So the relativistic momentum is a component of the total energy.
Choose Chapter 1 Speeding of Taylor and Wheeler text Exploring Black Holes. The energy equation derivation from constants of motion and the Principle of Extremal Aging are covered in Chapter 1 Speeding.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity
What's speculative is the bullshit you're spewing.
I didn't mean to skip you or ignore you. I included part of my answer to you in another post. But you deserve a direct answer. My 55 years of reading has always allowed me to think and reason outside the influence of the dogmatic expressions of theories that often routinely state theories as fact. Your (I'll show you how goddamn stupid you are) approach is not conducive to debate. I am aware of the equation you are so proud of and many others that are standard in physics. But I don't need to repeatedly recite it or even commit it to memory because all such equations are easy to access when you need them. I don't need to do the math over and over again to deal with the concepts they refer to. The other thing is that this is an aside that is peripheral to my question and it was synthsin75 who brought it up. I am capable of discussing at length my reason for regarding the whole idea the equation refers to as unproven but that is a discussion best dealt with in another post. Perhaps you would like to start one. To paraphrase my original question and perhaps make it more clear: "Does a ray of light (or any EM ray) move (for any reason) in any other additional vector other than its motion at c." I am not talking about the effects of divergence or gravity. And that my friend, the whole point of my post, is the one you ignored
QUOTE
Sonny boy, I have been reading about and studying Einstein's work in general and Special relativity in particular since about 1957
It appears to be 55 wasted years.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 20 2012, 01:18 AM)
I was not referring to the relativistic energy with my thought. That is about thought problems that require Lorentz Translations to illustrate Einsteins concepts in special Relativity.
The math you cite is the accepted math for the theory you believe but it does not make the theory true no matter how many people believe it. There is no observation that supports it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
Which of these are you in denial about?
That you think there is some ad populum conspiracy belies your misunderstanding.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
The math you cite is the accepted math for the theory you believe but it does not make the theory true no matter how many people believe it. There is no observation that supports it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
Which of these are you in denial about?
That you think there is some ad populum conspiracy belies your misunderstanding.
QUOTE
Sonny boy, I have been reading about and studying Einstein's work in general and Special relativity in particular since about 1957....
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 21 2012, 06:43 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
Which of these are you in denial about?
That you think there is some ad populum conspiracy belies your misunderstanding.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
There are no thought problems of the sort I refer to in the wick link. Such problems appear in high school and college physics texts and in encyclopedias. One is used by Walter Isaacson in "Einstein" published in 2007 by Simon and Schuster. His is an updated version of Galileo's Ship in which an observer on board this "Fast Ship" and one on shore both watch a beam of light sent from the top of the mast to the deck. The on board observer sees the light go the length of the mast and the on shore observer sees it take the longer path to where the base of the mast has progressed when it hit. Longer path longer time. The light speed must be the same for both.
Because I say that light does not take on the extra vector of the speed of the boat I say the light will hit the deck behind the mast. Furthermore both observers will see it the same. Since this is the classic proof for time dilation and the type of situation in which the Lorentz Transformations are employed to determine the exact values I believe the Transformations may not have any validity at all. There are other thought problems that deal with the Relativistic speed limit that have a similar problem. In many cases these thought problems are stated with specific speeds for the moving observer and the light source and the Lorentz Transformation math is shown to give the exact amount of time dilation or the exact relative speed of two moving observers each moving away from a third at rest observer. I have looked at quite a few and have not found one that does not require light to move in a second vector imparted by the source even to have a reason to need the Transformations.
I have not yet studied the wikipeda topic about experimental proof of time dilation. I won't comment until I've had time to study it. At quick glance it seems to be totally unrelated to the type of problem described above.
No comment on the stab you took with the second link.
Which of these are you in denial about?
That you think there is some ad populum conspiracy belies your misunderstanding.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
There are no thought problems of the sort I refer to in the wick link. Such problems appear in high school and college physics texts and in encyclopedias. One is used by Walter Isaacson in "Einstein" published in 2007 by Simon and Schuster. His is an updated version of Galileo's Ship in which an observer on board this "Fast Ship" and one on shore both watch a beam of light sent from the top of the mast to the deck. The on board observer sees the light go the length of the mast and the on shore observer sees it take the longer path to where the base of the mast has progressed when it hit. Longer path longer time. The light speed must be the same for both.
Because I say that light does not take on the extra vector of the speed of the boat I say the light will hit the deck behind the mast. Furthermore both observers will see it the same. Since this is the classic proof for time dilation and the type of situation in which the Lorentz Transformations are employed to determine the exact values I believe the Transformations may not have any validity at all. There are other thought problems that deal with the Relativistic speed limit that have a similar problem. In many cases these thought problems are stated with specific speeds for the moving observer and the light source and the Lorentz Transformation math is shown to give the exact amount of time dilation or the exact relative speed of two moving observers each moving away from a third at rest observer. I have looked at quite a few and have not found one that does not require light to move in a second vector imparted by the source even to have a reason to need the Transformations.
I have not yet studied the wikipeda topic about experimental proof of time dilation. I won't comment until I've had time to study it. At quick glance it seems to be totally unrelated to the type of problem described above.
No comment on the stab you took with the second link.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 21 2012, 05:25 PM)
There are no thought problems of the sort I refer to in the wick link. They appear in high school and college physics texts and in encyclopedias. One is used by Walter Isaacson in "Einstein" published in 2007 by Simon and Schuster. His is an updated version of Galileo's Ship in which an observer on board this "Fast Ship" both watch a beam of light sent from the top of the mast to the deck. The on board observer sees the light go the length of the mast and the on shore observer see it take the longer path to where the base of the mast has progressed to when it hit. Longer path longer time. The light speed must be the same for both. Because I say that light does not take on the extra vector of the speed of the boat I say the light will hit the deck behind the mast. Furthermore both observers will see it the same. Since this is the classic proof for time dilation and the type of situation in which the Lorentz Transformations are employed to determine the exact values I believe the Transformations may not have any validity at all. There are other thought problems that deal with the Relativistic speed limit that have a similar problem. In many cases these thought problems are stated with specific speeds for the moving observer and the light source and the Lorentz Transformation math is shown to give the exact amount of time dilation or the exact relative speed of two moving observers each moving away from a third at rest observer. I have looked at quite a few and have not found one that does not require light to move in a second vector imparted by the source even to have a reason to need the Transformations.
Experiment demands that two events that occur at the same place must be agreed upon by all observers, even if they disagree on the time. This means that all observers must agree on the event of the light striking the deck at the base of the mast.
Different frames of reference can be considered to be rotated with respect to one another, so the light need not have but one vector to be observed to take different paths. This is very elementary SR, so you do seem to have completely wasted your 55 years studying the subject.
It is extremely naive to think that an observer in a moving vehicle will find a beam of light to be curved, as this is a simple experiment to make.
So in your 55 years of study, you've never bothered to study time dilation?! How can you claim to have studied SR at all then?
Or perhaps it's just your aversion to experimental evidence of things you don't understand.
So in your 55 years of study, you've never bothered to study time dilation?! How can you claim to have studied SR at all then?
Or perhaps it's just your aversion to experimental evidence of things you don't understand.
No comment on the stab you took with the second link.
Yeah, too many direct correlations to bother enumerating.
Experiment demands that two events that occur at the same place must be agreed upon by all observers, even if they disagree on the time. This means that all observers must agree on the event of the light striking the deck at the base of the mast.
Different frames of reference can be considered to be rotated with respect to one another, so the light need not have but one vector to be observed to take different paths. This is very elementary SR, so you do seem to have completely wasted your 55 years studying the subject.
It is extremely naive to think that an observer in a moving vehicle will find a beam of light to be curved, as this is a simple experiment to make.
QUOTE
I have not yet studied the wickapeda topic about experimental proof of time dilation. I won't comment until I'v had time to study. At quick glance it seem to be totally unrelated to the type of problem described above.
So in your 55 years of study, you've never bothered to study time dilation?! How can you claim to have studied SR at all then?
Or perhaps it's just your aversion to experimental evidence of things you don't understand.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have not yet studied the wickapeda topic about experimental proof of time dilation. I won't comment until I'v had time to study. At quick glance it seem to be totally unrelated to the type of problem described above. |
So in your 55 years of study, you've never bothered to study time dilation?! How can you claim to have studied SR at all then?
Or perhaps it's just your aversion to experimental evidence of things you don't understand.
No comment on the stab you took with the second link.
Yeah, too many direct correlations to bother enumerating.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 21 2012, 11:44 PM)
Experiment demands that two events that occur at the same place must be agreed upon by all observers, even if they disagree on the time. This means that all observers must agree on the event of the light striking the deck at the base of the mast.
Different frames of reference can be considered to be rotated with respect to one another, so the light need not have but one vector to be observed to take different paths. This is very elementary SR, so you do seem to have completely wasted your 55 years studying the subject.
It is extremely naive to think that an observer in a moving vehicle will find a beam of light to be curved, as this is a simple experiment to make.
So in your 55 years of study, you've never bothered to study time dilation?! How can you claim to have studied SR at all then?
Or perhaps it's just your aversion to experimental evidence of things you don't understand.
Yeah, too many direct correlations to bother enumerating.
Let me disabuse you of your misconceptions about my '55 years of study'. I have not been engaged in a continuous obsession with relativity. When I was in high school relativity was not taught in even the most advanced physics courses. One had to study it by reading it outside of school. I did have one physics teacher (a sub) who was interested who presented me with a classic problem pertaining to relativity: Observers O and Q are each moving at 3/5c in opposite directions from stationary observer A. O sends a pulse of light to A and A relays the signal on to Q. I was told that because if you simply add the velocities together the result is 1and1/5c and the light could never catch up. I was to use the Lorentz Transformations to determine their true relative velocities. I got the right answer 15/17c and was given extra credit. Later when I was thinking about the problem I realized that the reasoning that said the light could never catch up was flawed.
When O sends his signal it proceeds from the point in space he occupied at that moment and the signal can easily catch up to Q without a relay by A. And Q can send a signal back to Q for the same reason. No relay and no Lorentz Transformations are necessary. Before I could show my results to that teacher the regular teacher returned and I had no more contact with that sub.
I did try to press my argument with others who were interested in relativity and sent off a few letters to editors of publications. No replies. Those people I argued with in person including college physics professors simply dismissed it without much thought with statements like "Einstein has to be right and there has to be a flaw in your reasoning, but I'm not up on relativity enough to tell you what is wrong."
That response I believe is very similar to yours today. You still take your instructive 'I know more than you do' stance and haven't even tried to understand my point. You bring up rotating frames but neglect to notice that there are never any rotating frames in any of the thought problems of the type I am considering.
After my attempts in those early years I gave up trying to find someone who would deal with my arguments head on and went on with my life. I continued to be interested and continued to read anything that came along on the subject. I have been a continuous subscriber to Scientific American since 1958 and have subscribed to many others many others since. "Science", "Science News", "Astronomy" currently.
As to whether I have studied time dilation. There isn't much to study. I did read the wikipedia article since my last post and though it is interesting it doesn't have any bearing on my arguments. When scientists set up experiments to prove a particular thing they have a bias built in from the start. I don't know what effects the hydrogen ion media and the high voltages had on the light and the extremely small variations don't tell me much.
The Twin paradox has been kicked around since the very early 1900's and is still often revisited by new true believers who don't seem to realize how beaten the path actually is. They get around the constraints of Special Relativity by saying it is obvious which twin was accelerated and of course ignoring that acceleration itself violates Special Relativity but there is nothing in Special or General Relativity that allows for a special status for the frame of the traveling twin. The paradox stands to this day as unsolvable within the constraints of Relativity. They can't both see each other as less aged or more aged simultaneously. Other than declaring there is a special 'at rest' frame there is no way out.
I have visited this subject more in my retirement than most of the intervening years and I have additional time for it right now only because of the record setting heatwave and drought that keeps me inside in the AC. If you ever take the time to actually think about what I said about the thought problems you may eventually see that I am right. If you never do, and you use your vast knowledge to continue to stick with the overwhelming roar of the scientific crowd you will continue to believe in a very interesting but artificial, mathematically induced view of the universe. You won't hurt my feelings at all.
There is true insight in what I say but you and all the others can continue to ignore it and probably will. I am very much aware of the enormity of the consequences of scrapping the Lorentz Transformations and have no idea where that would lead. Furthermore I don't really care which way it goes.
Different frames of reference can be considered to be rotated with respect to one another, so the light need not have but one vector to be observed to take different paths. This is very elementary SR, so you do seem to have completely wasted your 55 years studying the subject.
It is extremely naive to think that an observer in a moving vehicle will find a beam of light to be curved, as this is a simple experiment to make.
So in your 55 years of study, you've never bothered to study time dilation?! How can you claim to have studied SR at all then?
Or perhaps it's just your aversion to experimental evidence of things you don't understand.
Yeah, too many direct correlations to bother enumerating.
Let me disabuse you of your misconceptions about my '55 years of study'. I have not been engaged in a continuous obsession with relativity. When I was in high school relativity was not taught in even the most advanced physics courses. One had to study it by reading it outside of school. I did have one physics teacher (a sub) who was interested who presented me with a classic problem pertaining to relativity: Observers O and Q are each moving at 3/5c in opposite directions from stationary observer A. O sends a pulse of light to A and A relays the signal on to Q. I was told that because if you simply add the velocities together the result is 1and1/5c and the light could never catch up. I was to use the Lorentz Transformations to determine their true relative velocities. I got the right answer 15/17c and was given extra credit. Later when I was thinking about the problem I realized that the reasoning that said the light could never catch up was flawed.
When O sends his signal it proceeds from the point in space he occupied at that moment and the signal can easily catch up to Q without a relay by A. And Q can send a signal back to Q for the same reason. No relay and no Lorentz Transformations are necessary. Before I could show my results to that teacher the regular teacher returned and I had no more contact with that sub.
I did try to press my argument with others who were interested in relativity and sent off a few letters to editors of publications. No replies. Those people I argued with in person including college physics professors simply dismissed it without much thought with statements like "Einstein has to be right and there has to be a flaw in your reasoning, but I'm not up on relativity enough to tell you what is wrong."
That response I believe is very similar to yours today. You still take your instructive 'I know more than you do' stance and haven't even tried to understand my point. You bring up rotating frames but neglect to notice that there are never any rotating frames in any of the thought problems of the type I am considering.
After my attempts in those early years I gave up trying to find someone who would deal with my arguments head on and went on with my life. I continued to be interested and continued to read anything that came along on the subject. I have been a continuous subscriber to Scientific American since 1958 and have subscribed to many others many others since. "Science", "Science News", "Astronomy" currently.
As to whether I have studied time dilation. There isn't much to study. I did read the wikipedia article since my last post and though it is interesting it doesn't have any bearing on my arguments. When scientists set up experiments to prove a particular thing they have a bias built in from the start. I don't know what effects the hydrogen ion media and the high voltages had on the light and the extremely small variations don't tell me much.
The Twin paradox has been kicked around since the very early 1900's and is still often revisited by new true believers who don't seem to realize how beaten the path actually is. They get around the constraints of Special Relativity by saying it is obvious which twin was accelerated and of course ignoring that acceleration itself violates Special Relativity but there is nothing in Special or General Relativity that allows for a special status for the frame of the traveling twin. The paradox stands to this day as unsolvable within the constraints of Relativity. They can't both see each other as less aged or more aged simultaneously. Other than declaring there is a special 'at rest' frame there is no way out.
I have visited this subject more in my retirement than most of the intervening years and I have additional time for it right now only because of the record setting heatwave and drought that keeps me inside in the AC. If you ever take the time to actually think about what I said about the thought problems you may eventually see that I am right. If you never do, and you use your vast knowledge to continue to stick with the overwhelming roar of the scientific crowd you will continue to believe in a very interesting but artificial, mathematically induced view of the universe. You won't hurt my feelings at all.
There is true insight in what I say but you and all the others can continue to ignore it and probably will. I am very much aware of the enormity of the consequences of scrapping the Lorentz Transformations and have no idea where that would lead. Furthermore I don't really care which way it goes.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 22 2012, 05:32 AM)
Blah, blah, blah...self-justification this and Dunning–Kruger that...
So your whole argument against the Lorentz transforms is due to a flawed problem offered to you by an enthusiast high school substitute teacher? Then you reinforced your cognitive bias through discussions with physics professors who were "not up on relativity"?
Sure, because we couldn't have possibly learned ANYTHING more in the intervening ~50 years. [sarcasm]
At least it appears that you haven't.
Sure, because we couldn't have possibly learned ANYTHING more in the intervening ~50 years. [sarcasm]
At least it appears that you haven't.
You bring up rotating frames but neglect to notice that there are never any rotating frames in any of the thought problems of the type I am considering.
I did NOT bring up rotating frames. Your ignorance simply leads you to mistake what I actually said ("Different frames of reference can be considered to be rotated with respect to one another") for your naive straw man.
Willful ignorance it is then.
Willful ignorance it is then.
The paradox stands to this day as unsolvable within the constraints of Relativity. They can't both see each other as less aged or more aged simultaneously. Other than declaring there is a special 'at rest' frame there is no way out.
Naive incredulity on your part, nothing else. The "paradox" is not paradoxical in the least, and the last thing it needs is some mythical "'at rest' frame". You are simply digging your own hole by exposing the depth of your misunderstanding.
And all this is just more examples of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
So you claim to have been reading relativity for 55 years, but know nothing about time dilation and go to wikipedia to find out?
So you claim to have been reading relativity for 55 years, but know nothing about time dilation and go to wikipedia to find out?
That is how old I am and whad I say about viability wars . Ah Yeah
So you claim to have been reading relativity for 55 years, but know nothing about time dilation and go to wikipedia to find out?
I have known about time dilation and understood Einsteins derivation of it for at least 55 years. I went to the site Synthsin75 provided a link to it and thought I needed some fact correcting education. Not because I am unfamiliar with dilation. But I know that won't sway you in your desire to paint me and many others as stupid and unworthy.
I spent some time going back over previous posts to this forum to see how much of it was of interest to me and to get a feel for who’s who in this forum community. I paid particular attention to previous posts by people whose current posts interest me and to those of members who have commented on mine. After a while I became especially interested in posts of yours because they all seem to be in the same form as your posts on my thread: Two lines max; Content of science thought? None; Implied superiority? Always; Evidence of your superiority; none.
In the more than a year of posts I looked through there is only one I could find that you originated. Longest of all, it was three lines! And guess what, it’s not about science, it’s about you and how you can appoint yourself judge jury and executioner of the entire forum. The last line of your post; “This place now sucks”. But that wasn’t the beginning of your one and two line campaign of disparagement. All the rest I saw going back to Feb. 2011 were of the same type. Now I can’t say I read every post you made on every thread because I only read those posts whose subjects interested me. So throughout the entire year and a half that I looked through, you have done nothing that aids or encourages debate or participation. In fact the opposite seems to be true.
One other thing that stood out is the fact that yours is often the last post on threads you have responded to. Perhaps you are aware of that and feel triumph at vanquishing a foe. If that is your goal and your self-appointed job, let me tell you something: You have the easiest job of all. Anyone can spot what they think is a weakness in somebody else’s thought and take potshots, call people vile and disparaging names and tell them to get an education. You don’t even have to be particularly literate in the subject to do that. When the attacks go to what you deem a personal weakness you don’t need to have any literacy at all. It is exactly equal to kids on a playground going na-na-na back and forth with each other and serves no purpose. It may surprise you to hear that often the people you attack with your mean approach know their weaknesses far better than you do and before you ever encountered them.
Whether yours or someone else’s, doing what you do, I encountered several posts that asked; ‘Is English not your native language?’ and other variations of the same question. The fact is that I have read posts where the clumsiness of syntax and misuse of words made it obvious that the poster was struggling with English and that it was not their first language. You have no way to determine the quality of thought or the overall intelligence of such a person if you refuse to engage them based on a snap judgment made because of an obvious problem in communication. Could you do better than them if you read their posts in their native language?
But then you are not about communication and understanding, you are about superiority and judgment. You consider your judgment final. Well I am capable of making final judgments of my own. This is the last post I will ever make in response to you. I don’t eat your brand of ***!
By the way if you have been successful in causing anyone to discontinue their participation in this site, it’s a pity. Even the most obviously wrong of the people you have responded to have displayed more in the way of original thought than I have seen from you.
“Relativity” is the first word in this forum. And we all know that means Einstein’s Relativity. I suggest that if you want to understand Einstein’s own approach to the exchange and popular dissemination of scientific ideas you might want to read the foreword he wrote for Lincoln Barnett’s “The universe and Dr. Einstein” in 1948. Einstein never put himself on a pedestal out of reach of mere men. He disagreed with many but disparaged no one. He was always polite and engaging, never dismissive. That is your forte. And the ultimate irony that pertains to you is that if you were around when it all began and took your current approach, you would have dismissed him too. I don’t know your education. You reveal nothing of yourself. But you are certainly not worthy of the lofty perch you choose for yourself.
One is used by Walter Isaacson in "Einstein" published in 2007 by Simon and Schuster. His is an updated version of Galileo's Ship in which an observer on board this "Fast Ship" and one on shore both watch a beam of light sent from the top of the mast to the deck. The on board observer sees the light go the length of the mast and the on shore observer sees it take the longer path to where the base of the mast has progressed when it hit. Longer path longer time. The light speed must be the same for both.
Because I say that light does not take on the extra vector of the speed of the boat I say the light will hit the deck behind the mast.
I've read your posts and I'm not sure what you are saying is the dynamic of time dilation in lieu of the "extra vector"; would you please elucidate this for me? I'm assuming you would agree, atomic clocks on board planes and space craft have proved time dilation is a real phenomenon.
Maxila
Like everything in phenomenal world, the world that is popularily being referred to as REAL PHYSICAL WORLD, in that world any and all events must be observed in order to be classified as real events. And this is the world that mainstream physics is about.
The term observer is suggested being replaced by the more modern Observer Team (family of observers) in which each observer makes observations in their immediate vicinity where delays are negligible, cooperating with the rest of the team to set up synchronized clocks across the entire region of observation, and all team members sending their various results back to a data collector for synthesis.
Well well well, now we are dealing with light, a physical reality and something that has the highest / fastest propagation through the medium, a speed that by many is said to be equivalent to the speed of physical information (at least in a weldefined scale that I call the qubit of photon in the scale of human physical senses). In this context it is impossible for me to imagine how anything can be synchronized meaningfully in order to determine if light propagates through the medium like a one vector or in any other configuration, respectively. I would like to think that light propagates in the configuration of a sphere and radiating with a speed of c in all directions, until being interfered with. This implicate that the observer will ALWAYS see or measure light as a single vector, but with a God Eye it would be seen as a spherical radiation. This prediction is NOT a result of observation and experiment, because these tools are neither sufficiently accurate nor are they applicable in the context of getting insight into the medium (noumenal world). Here we are forced to use more sophisticated tools like the human imagination.
.
No that isn't my question. The question is does a beam of light move with a second vector imparted by the motion of the source. The progress of light at c is not considered the result of momentum.
No that isn't my question. The question is does a beam of light move with a second vector imparted by the motion of the source. The progress of light at c is not considered the result of momentum.
Let me start with a question why it is believed that light beam propagates in spacetime (the medium) as a single vector --
I would say that it is known, not believed and there is so much to support it that I hardly know where to begin. But a simple modern example would be a laser, if the coherent beam from a laser had additional vectors it wouldn't be near as useful as it is. Lasers are now used to do all kinds of measuring, leveling etc. All would be chaos if the light wasn't in a single vector.
The following is quoted from your post but for some unknown reason I can't get a box around it.
"Likewise my ranting was specifically addressing your second question about SOURCE of momentum, or what I would like to call the SOURCE of ENERGY needed to propagate photon through the medium. May I suggest that you reread my post, and with all your imagination being involved (think like a possibilian and not as a restrictionist, and perhaps you will get a gist of what I am proposing)."
Spacetime is not usually considered a medium in the propagation of light though I guess some may be saying that now. To imagine that light must have a medium puts the reasoning about what light waves are back to pre-Relativity. Trying to have a one to one analogy to waves in water and sound waves is the bugaboo.
Once again light moving at c, its only vector, is not considered to be moving because of momentum. And the source of energy for the propagation of light is no great mystery the AA batteries in my Mini Maglight is source enough and so is the chemical reactions in the belly of a firefly. No imaginative new theories are needed.
I skipped over the part of this post of yours that is another rant but I will attempt to answer that part now. Einstein was a pioneer in 'minds eye' observations. All of his thought problems employ them. In addition all observation of atomic and subatomic phenom must employ this method to make any sense of it at all. No one has ever seen an electron or proton, they must be mind's eye observed to be understood at all.
I've read your posts and I'm not sure what you are saying is the dynamic of time dilation in lieu of the "extra vector"; would you please elucidate this for me? I'm assuming you would agree, atomic clocks on board planes and space craft have proved time dilation is a real phenomenon.
Maxila
Without the extra vector to keep the light moving with the source there is no evidence of time dilation and no need for Lorentz Transformations to determine exactly how much dilation there is.
Without the extra vector to keep the light moving with the source there is no evidence of time dilation and no need for Lorentz Transformations to determine exactly how much dilation there is.
I'm assuming you would agree, atomic clocks on board planes and space craft have proved time dilation is a real phenomenon.
I don't have details at my fingertips but I have read about these experiments. The Idea that you could prove relativistic time dilation by flying any so called 'identical atomic clocks' on jet planes is somewhat ludicrous. Jet planes don't fly anywhere near fast enough to garner significant results. Furthermore the Jet plane experiment I read about took place in the 70s which by today's standards was the dark ages for atomic clocks. Consider this, even the best of today's atomic clocks have to have a correction mechanism built into them to keep them accurate to their full potential. The reliability of the ones from the 70s was no where near perfect. Given that and the extremely slow relativistic speeds of jet planes I think that one is suspect at best.
I haven't read any definitive discussion of clocks on space probes and while it is true that they are perhaps a little closer to relativistic speeds the effect will still be extremely small. Space probes have not achieved speeds any where near 50,000mph and that is only about .000075c. One of the problems in all experimentation designed to prove what is already believed is that the designer of the experiment is often ready to use scant evidence to claim positive results. Often he is compelled to do that because of the expense of the endeavor if nothing else.
One other common feature of experimentation that is designed to 'prove' a predetermined conclusion is that there is usually little or no effort expended on looking for alternative explanations for the results. Always remember this, no clock that was ever made directly measures time. They all measure something that we consider to be dependably analogous to some specific amount of time. Draw your own conclusions.
So your whole argument against the Lorentz transforms is due to a flawed problem offered to you by an enthusiast high school substitute teacher? Then you reinforced your cognitive bias through discussions with physics professors who were "not up on relativity"?
QUOTE
That response I believe is very similar to yours today.
Sure, because we couldn't have possibly learned ANYTHING more in the intervening ~50 years. [sarcasm]
At least it appears that you haven't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That response I believe is very similar to yours today. |
Sure, because we couldn't have possibly learned ANYTHING more in the intervening ~50 years. [sarcasm]
At least it appears that you haven't.
You bring up rotating frames but neglect to notice that there are never any rotating frames in any of the thought problems of the type I am considering.
I did NOT bring up rotating frames. Your ignorance simply leads you to mistake what I actually said ("Different frames of reference can be considered to be rotated with respect to one another") for your naive straw man.
QUOTE
As to whether I have studied time dilation. There isn't much to study. I did read the wikipedia article since my last post and though it is interesting it doesn't have any bearing on my arguments. When scientists set up experiments to prove a particular thing they have a bias built in from the start. I don't know what effects the hydrogen ion media and the high voltages had on the light and the extremely small variations don't tell me much.
Willful ignorance it is then.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As to whether I have studied time dilation. There isn't much to study. I did read the wikipedia article since my last post and though it is interesting it doesn't have any bearing on my arguments. When scientists set up experiments to prove a particular thing they have a bias built in from the start. I don't know what effects the hydrogen ion media and the high voltages had on the light and the extremely small variations don't tell me much. |
Willful ignorance it is then.
The paradox stands to this day as unsolvable within the constraints of Relativity. They can't both see each other as less aged or more aged simultaneously. Other than declaring there is a special 'at rest' frame there is no way out.
Naive incredulity on your part, nothing else. The "paradox" is not paradoxical in the least, and the last thing it needs is some mythical "'at rest' frame". You are simply digging your own hole by exposing the depth of your misunderstanding.
And all this is just more examples of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
QUOTE
I did read the wikipedia article since my last post and though it is interesting it doesn't have any bearing on my arguments
So you claim to have been reading relativity for 55 years, but know nothing about time dilation and go to wikipedia to find out?
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 22 2012, 07:15 PM)
So you claim to have been reading relativity for 55 years, but know nothing about time dilation and go to wikipedia to find out?
That is how old I am and whad I say about viability wars . Ah Yeah
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 22 2012, 07:15 PM)
So you claim to have been reading relativity for 55 years, but know nothing about time dilation and go to wikipedia to find out?
I have known about time dilation and understood Einsteins derivation of it for at least 55 years. I went to the site Synthsin75 provided a link to it and thought I needed some fact correcting education. Not because I am unfamiliar with dilation. But I know that won't sway you in your desire to paint me and many others as stupid and unworthy.
I spent some time going back over previous posts to this forum to see how much of it was of interest to me and to get a feel for who’s who in this forum community. I paid particular attention to previous posts by people whose current posts interest me and to those of members who have commented on mine. After a while I became especially interested in posts of yours because they all seem to be in the same form as your posts on my thread: Two lines max; Content of science thought? None; Implied superiority? Always; Evidence of your superiority; none.
In the more than a year of posts I looked through there is only one I could find that you originated. Longest of all, it was three lines! And guess what, it’s not about science, it’s about you and how you can appoint yourself judge jury and executioner of the entire forum. The last line of your post; “This place now sucks”. But that wasn’t the beginning of your one and two line campaign of disparagement. All the rest I saw going back to Feb. 2011 were of the same type. Now I can’t say I read every post you made on every thread because I only read those posts whose subjects interested me. So throughout the entire year and a half that I looked through, you have done nothing that aids or encourages debate or participation. In fact the opposite seems to be true.
One other thing that stood out is the fact that yours is often the last post on threads you have responded to. Perhaps you are aware of that and feel triumph at vanquishing a foe. If that is your goal and your self-appointed job, let me tell you something: You have the easiest job of all. Anyone can spot what they think is a weakness in somebody else’s thought and take potshots, call people vile and disparaging names and tell them to get an education. You don’t even have to be particularly literate in the subject to do that. When the attacks go to what you deem a personal weakness you don’t need to have any literacy at all. It is exactly equal to kids on a playground going na-na-na back and forth with each other and serves no purpose. It may surprise you to hear that often the people you attack with your mean approach know their weaknesses far better than you do and before you ever encountered them.
Whether yours or someone else’s, doing what you do, I encountered several posts that asked; ‘Is English not your native language?’ and other variations of the same question. The fact is that I have read posts where the clumsiness of syntax and misuse of words made it obvious that the poster was struggling with English and that it was not their first language. You have no way to determine the quality of thought or the overall intelligence of such a person if you refuse to engage them based on a snap judgment made because of an obvious problem in communication. Could you do better than them if you read their posts in their native language?
But then you are not about communication and understanding, you are about superiority and judgment. You consider your judgment final. Well I am capable of making final judgments of my own. This is the last post I will ever make in response to you. I don’t eat your brand of ***!
By the way if you have been successful in causing anyone to discontinue their participation in this site, it’s a pity. Even the most obviously wrong of the people you have responded to have displayed more in the way of original thought than I have seen from you.
“Relativity” is the first word in this forum. And we all know that means Einstein’s Relativity. I suggest that if you want to understand Einstein’s own approach to the exchange and popular dissemination of scientific ideas you might want to read the foreword he wrote for Lincoln Barnett’s “The universe and Dr. Einstein” in 1948. Einstein never put himself on a pedestal out of reach of mere men. He disagreed with many but disparaged no one. He was always polite and engaging, never dismissive. That is your forte. And the ultimate irony that pertains to you is that if you were around when it all began and took your current approach, you would have dismissed him too. I don’t know your education. You reveal nothing of yourself. But you are certainly not worthy of the lofty perch you choose for yourself.
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jul 23 2012, 02:10 AM)
That is how old I am and whad I say about viability wars . Ah Yeah
I haven't paid much attention to any previous posts of yours and know nothing about you but it seems you are rah-rahing AlexG. He doesn't need your help. It might interest you to know that for some of us who have thoughts to share and questions we would like to have answers to, there is no war and there is no triumph. Please read my previous post.
I haven't paid much attention to any previous posts of yours and know nothing about you but it seems you are rah-rahing AlexG. He doesn't need your help. It might interest you to know that for some of us who have thoughts to share and questions we would like to have answers to, there is no war and there is no triumph. Please read my previous post.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 03:40 PM)
So your whole argument against the Lorentz transforms is due to a flawed problem offered to you by an enthusiast high school substitute teacher? Then you reinforced your cognitive bias through discussions with physics professors who were "not up on relativity"?
Sure, because we couldn't have possibly learned ANYTHING more in the intervening ~50 years. [sarcasm]
At least it appears that you haven't.
I did NOT bring up rotating frames. Your ignorance simply leads you to mistake what I actually said ("Different frames of reference can be considered to be rotated with respect to one another") for your naive straw man.
Willful ignorance it is then.
Naive incredulity on your part, nothing else. The "paradox" is not paradoxical in the least, and the last thing it needs is some mythical "'at rest' frame". You are simply digging your own hole by exposing the depth of your misunderstanding.
And all this is just more examples of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
Your post came before my the last two I replied to. I hope you have read them but if you don't care to I will repeat here some of the thoughts they contain. Namely the fact that I took some time going over previous posts to this site, I went back to Feb. 2011. I read posts on topics that interested me and paid particular attention to those whose posts I am currently interested in and to those of members who have commented in mine.
If you read my post to AlexG you know that I have rejected him any why. In my trip through the past I read many of your posts. Quite a few of them actually are thoughtful and pertain to the subject. But sometimes you go raw and get judgmental in a vein similar to his. You did that with me. You became judgmental, taunting and disrespectful and presumably believe it is justified. The unhappy fact is that such treatment of others you pretend to engage is never justified. From a few revealing statements about myself you feel free to take pot shots that are so easy to jump to that you have no further means of actually knowing anything about me. You have no way to gauge the depth of my understanding of physics or the quality of my intellect simply by your judgment that I have one foolish thought that you and all science disagrees with plus a vulnerability or group of them you have easily uncovered.
I have not chosen to disengage with you because I see worthy engagement and clear reasoning in many of your posts. But I have also noticed other places where you went negative and took pot shots in the same vein you did with me. Yours is also the last post to many threads. I think that equals a strong bent toward discouragement and exclusion, but you have demonstrated sound knowledge and a willingness to engage if not debate at times. I had meant to deal with the points and digs in your post one by one but I'll have to save it for later. Duty calls.
Sure, because we couldn't have possibly learned ANYTHING more in the intervening ~50 years. [sarcasm]
At least it appears that you haven't.
I did NOT bring up rotating frames. Your ignorance simply leads you to mistake what I actually said ("Different frames of reference can be considered to be rotated with respect to one another") for your naive straw man.
Willful ignorance it is then.
Naive incredulity on your part, nothing else. The "paradox" is not paradoxical in the least, and the last thing it needs is some mythical "'at rest' frame". You are simply digging your own hole by exposing the depth of your misunderstanding.
And all this is just more examples of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
Your post came before my the last two I replied to. I hope you have read them but if you don't care to I will repeat here some of the thoughts they contain. Namely the fact that I took some time going over previous posts to this site, I went back to Feb. 2011. I read posts on topics that interested me and paid particular attention to those whose posts I am currently interested in and to those of members who have commented in mine.
If you read my post to AlexG you know that I have rejected him any why. In my trip through the past I read many of your posts. Quite a few of them actually are thoughtful and pertain to the subject. But sometimes you go raw and get judgmental in a vein similar to his. You did that with me. You became judgmental, taunting and disrespectful and presumably believe it is justified. The unhappy fact is that such treatment of others you pretend to engage is never justified. From a few revealing statements about myself you feel free to take pot shots that are so easy to jump to that you have no further means of actually knowing anything about me. You have no way to gauge the depth of my understanding of physics or the quality of my intellect simply by your judgment that I have one foolish thought that you and all science disagrees with plus a vulnerability or group of them you have easily uncovered.
I have not chosen to disengage with you because I see worthy engagement and clear reasoning in many of your posts. But I have also noticed other places where you went negative and took pot shots in the same vein you did with me. Yours is also the last post to many threads. I think that equals a strong bent toward discouragement and exclusion, but you have demonstrated sound knowledge and a willingness to engage if not debate at times. I had meant to deal with the points and digs in your post one by one but I'll have to save it for later. Duty calls.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 24 2012, 03:18 PM)
I haven't paid much attention to any previous posts of yours and know nothing about you but it seems you are rah-rahing AlexG. He doesn't need your help. It might interest you to know that for some of us who have thoughts to share and questions we would like to have answers to, there is no war and there is no triumph. Please read my previous post.
You are wrong about that . Viability wars are on big time . Don't you follow the economy ? Do you have a job ?
It is not that I Raw Raw Alex . I do respect Alex though . Alex was there when I first joined the science internet community . With open arms I might add
I could respect you but that is to early to tell .
The silent war of viability . Yeah ! You are ignorant if you can't see it unfolding . But then you prob think minute to minute and there for can't see it . You got to think in longer terms than minute to minute. Try thinking out an hr and then take it from there .
Short term memory is not all it is cracked up to be .
You might even begin to plan out a week if you get enough practice.
We call it the information battles . They can be brutal to peoples egos. Skin thickening and hair growing is the results. The sword of the mouth . Yeah ! You don't follow politics much either I take it or the collapse of economic systems. Yeah the war is on big time .
Real life wars
You are wrong about that . Viability wars are on big time . Don't you follow the economy ? Do you have a job ?
It is not that I Raw Raw Alex . I do respect Alex though . Alex was there when I first joined the science internet community . With open arms I might add
I could respect you but that is to early to tell .
The silent war of viability . Yeah ! You are ignorant if you can't see it unfolding . But then you prob think minute to minute and there for can't see it . You got to think in longer terms than minute to minute. Try thinking out an hr and then take it from there .
Short term memory is not all it is cracked up to be .
You might even begin to plan out a week if you get enough practice.
We call it the information battles . They can be brutal to peoples egos. Skin thickening and hair growing is the results. The sword of the mouth . Yeah ! You don't follow politics much either I take it or the collapse of economic systems. Yeah the war is on big time .
Real life wars
O.K. your winning Me over . You at least have the decency to check things out about the membership before condemnation. That is a big number 1 point in my book .
Do you like Cake ? Your never there . Great song . You took the time . Not really stocking so go for it .
Got to go ,
Do you like Cake ? Your never there . Great song . You took the time . Not really stocking so go for it .
Got to go ,
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jul 24 2012, 05:08 PM)
You are wrong about that . Viability wars are on big time . Don't you follow the economy ? Do you have a job ?
It is not that I Raw Raw Alex . I do respect Alex though . Alex was there when I first joined the science internet community . With open arms I might add
I could respect you but that is to early to tell .
The silent war of viability . Yeah ! You are ignorant if you can't see it unfolding . But then you prob think minute to minute and there for can't see it . You got to think in longer terms than minute to minute. Try thinking out an hr and then take it from there .
Short term memory is not all it is cracked up to be .
You might even begin to plan out a week if you get enough practice.
We call it the information battles . They can be brutal to peoples egos. Skin thickening and hair growing is the results. The sword of the mouth . Yeah ! You don't follow politics much either I take it or the collapse of economic systems. Yeah the war is on big time .
Real life wars
Your cryptic form of argument is not in the form of clear discourse that immediately or even eventually put the reader unfamiliar with the meaning of your catch phrases in contact with what you are thinking. You splash all over the place with thoughts that undoubtedly are connected in your mind but you don't share the connection. I have no idea what you mean by 'viability wars' and I do not doubt that they exist.
What I said about there being no wars for some of us who wish to exchange ideas pertains to the discourse in this forum and nothing else. Declaring me wrong in a rude and dogmatic insistence as the first words of your reply do is not conducive to understanding. The fact is you didn't understand what I meant by what I said and you went headlong into your own debate and your own agenda. I have no way to know whether I agree or disagree with your core thoughts because you haven't even attempted to state them in a clear and universally understandable way.
Your presumptions about how I might be thinking minute to minute are silly and ludicrous. You can know nothing about me by presumption and actually that is true for all people you encounter. You can know the truth to any specific question that you have about me if you simply ask. But if you seek to pigeonhole and marginalize me based on your own assumptions and snap judgments you'll never know anything at all about me. What you get to know with that approach is a reflection of your own arrogance and conceit, nothing more.
Not only do I follow politics I participate very actively. I went door to door and met face to face with people in hope of winning support for my candidate in our last Presidential election.
The collapse of economic systems belongs to everyone and severely effects everybody, so any smug belief you have in the loftiness and special keenness of your personal perspective is another absurdity. I see far enough ahead on this subject to tell you I think it isn't anywhere near over yet and politics prevents much of any progress as it stands now. But that is what I see as the biggest most important war. It is the same economic battle that has plagued mankind seemingly forever. History teaches many things but it teaches nothing to those who are ignorant of it. The political arguments about the economy are eerily similar to the ones Andrew Mellon and wall street were making just after the beginning of the great depression. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.
It is not that I Raw Raw Alex . I do respect Alex though . Alex was there when I first joined the science internet community . With open arms I might add
I could respect you but that is to early to tell .
The silent war of viability . Yeah ! You are ignorant if you can't see it unfolding . But then you prob think minute to minute and there for can't see it . You got to think in longer terms than minute to minute. Try thinking out an hr and then take it from there .
Short term memory is not all it is cracked up to be .
You might even begin to plan out a week if you get enough practice.
We call it the information battles . They can be brutal to peoples egos. Skin thickening and hair growing is the results. The sword of the mouth . Yeah ! You don't follow politics much either I take it or the collapse of economic systems. Yeah the war is on big time .
Real life wars
Your cryptic form of argument is not in the form of clear discourse that immediately or even eventually put the reader unfamiliar with the meaning of your catch phrases in contact with what you are thinking. You splash all over the place with thoughts that undoubtedly are connected in your mind but you don't share the connection. I have no idea what you mean by 'viability wars' and I do not doubt that they exist.
What I said about there being no wars for some of us who wish to exchange ideas pertains to the discourse in this forum and nothing else. Declaring me wrong in a rude and dogmatic insistence as the first words of your reply do is not conducive to understanding. The fact is you didn't understand what I meant by what I said and you went headlong into your own debate and your own agenda. I have no way to know whether I agree or disagree with your core thoughts because you haven't even attempted to state them in a clear and universally understandable way.
Your presumptions about how I might be thinking minute to minute are silly and ludicrous. You can know nothing about me by presumption and actually that is true for all people you encounter. You can know the truth to any specific question that you have about me if you simply ask. But if you seek to pigeonhole and marginalize me based on your own assumptions and snap judgments you'll never know anything at all about me. What you get to know with that approach is a reflection of your own arrogance and conceit, nothing more.
Not only do I follow politics I participate very actively. I went door to door and met face to face with people in hope of winning support for my candidate in our last Presidential election.
The collapse of economic systems belongs to everyone and severely effects everybody, so any smug belief you have in the loftiness and special keenness of your personal perspective is another absurdity. I see far enough ahead on this subject to tell you I think it isn't anywhere near over yet and politics prevents much of any progress as it stands now. But that is what I see as the biggest most important war. It is the same economic battle that has plagued mankind seemingly forever. History teaches many things but it teaches nothing to those who are ignorant of it. The political arguments about the economy are eerily similar to the ones Andrew Mellon and wall street were making just after the beginning of the great depression. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 24 2012, 03:56 PM)
I took some time going over previous posts to this site, I went back to Feb. 2011. I read posts on topics that interested me and paid particular attention to those whose posts I am currently interested in and to those of members who have commented in mine.
Having been following this forum for a substantial period of time it is difficult to disagree on your analysis on some of the members.
However, I am a bit disappointed when you say that my latest rambling / ranting did not contain anything pertaining to your OP.
If I get it rightly you ask about the nature of a light beam, does it only move in the one vector c, AND what is the SOURCE of the momemtum of the light beam, respectively.
Let me start to ask the question why it is believed that a light beam propagates in spacetime (the medium) as a single vector, in what I would refer to as a beam (provided of course that I read you rightly).
Like everything in phenomenal world, the world that is popularily being referred to as REAL PHYSICAL WORLD, in that world any and all events must be observed in order to be classified as real events. And this is the world that mainstream physics is about.
The term observer is suggested being replaced by the more modern Observer Team (family of observers) in which each observer makes observations in their immediate vicinity where delays are negligible, cooperating with the rest of the team to set up synchronized clocks across the entire region of observation, and all team members sending their various results back to a data collector for synthesis.
Well well well, now we are dealing with light, a physical reality and something that has the highest / fastest propagation through the medium, a speed that by many is said to be equivalent to the speed of physical information (at least in a weldefined scale that I call the qubit of photon in the scale of human physical senses). In this context it is impossible for me to imagine how anything can be synchronized meaningfully in order to determine if light propagates through the medium like a one vector or in any other configuration, respectively. I would like to think that light propagates in the configuration of a sphere and radiating with a speed of c in all directions, until being interfered with. This implicate that the observer will ALWAYS see or measure light as a single vector, but with a God Eye it would be seen as a spherical radiation. This prediction is NOT a result of observation and experiment, because these tools are neither sufficiently accurate nor are they applicable in the context of getting insight into the medium (noumenal world). Here we are forced to use more sophisticated tools like the human imagination.
Likewise my ranting was specifically addressing your second question about SOURCE of momentum, or what I would like to call the SOURCE of ENERGY needed to propagate photon through the medium. May I suggest that you reread my post, and with all your imagination being involved (think like a possibilian and not as a restrictionist, and perhaps you will get a gist of what I am proposing).
Having been following this forum for a substantial period of time it is difficult to disagree on your analysis on some of the members.
However, I am a bit disappointed when you say that my latest rambling / ranting did not contain anything pertaining to your OP.
If I get it rightly you ask about the nature of a light beam, does it only move in the one vector c, AND what is the SOURCE of the momemtum of the light beam, respectively.
Let me start to ask the question why it is believed that a light beam propagates in spacetime (the medium) as a single vector, in what I would refer to as a beam (provided of course that I read you rightly).
Like everything in phenomenal world, the world that is popularily being referred to as REAL PHYSICAL WORLD, in that world any and all events must be observed in order to be classified as real events. And this is the world that mainstream physics is about.
The term observer is suggested being replaced by the more modern Observer Team (family of observers) in which each observer makes observations in their immediate vicinity where delays are negligible, cooperating with the rest of the team to set up synchronized clocks across the entire region of observation, and all team members sending their various results back to a data collector for synthesis.
Well well well, now we are dealing with light, a physical reality and something that has the highest / fastest propagation through the medium, a speed that by many is said to be equivalent to the speed of physical information (at least in a weldefined scale that I call the qubit of photon in the scale of human physical senses). In this context it is impossible for me to imagine how anything can be synchronized meaningfully in order to determine if light propagates through the medium like a one vector or in any other configuration, respectively. I would like to think that light propagates in the configuration of a sphere and radiating with a speed of c in all directions, until being interfered with. This implicate that the observer will ALWAYS see or measure light as a single vector, but with a God Eye it would be seen as a spherical radiation. This prediction is NOT a result of observation and experiment, because these tools are neither sufficiently accurate nor are they applicable in the context of getting insight into the medium (noumenal world). Here we are forced to use more sophisticated tools like the human imagination.
Likewise my ranting was specifically addressing your second question about SOURCE of momentum, or what I would like to call the SOURCE of ENERGY needed to propagate photon through the medium. May I suggest that you reread my post, and with all your imagination being involved (think like a possibilian and not as a restrictionist, and perhaps you will get a gist of what I am proposing).
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 15 2012, 10:09 AM)
Does a ray of light retain momentum imparted by the motions of its source or does it only move in a single vector at c.
Example: A distant star is moving at 100k mph from east to west relative to an observer. Do the light rays the observer sees move both at c straight into his lens and also move at 100k mph east to west or does it move only in the one vector at c?
One vector at C.
However the wavelength of the light is Doppler shifted according to the transverse Doppler effect.
Speed of light postulate = speed of light is the same for every observer.
Example: A distant star is moving at 100k mph from east to west relative to an observer. Do the light rays the observer sees move both at c straight into his lens and also move at 100k mph east to west or does it move only in the one vector at c?
One vector at C.
However the wavelength of the light is Doppler shifted according to the transverse Doppler effect.
Speed of light postulate = speed of light is the same for every observer.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 21 2012, 06:25 PM)
One is used by Walter Isaacson in "Einstein" published in 2007 by Simon and Schuster. His is an updated version of Galileo's Ship in which an observer on board this "Fast Ship" and one on shore both watch a beam of light sent from the top of the mast to the deck. The on board observer sees the light go the length of the mast and the on shore observer sees it take the longer path to where the base of the mast has progressed when it hit. Longer path longer time. The light speed must be the same for both.
Because I say that light does not take on the extra vector of the speed of the boat I say the light will hit the deck behind the mast.
I've read your posts and I'm not sure what you are saying is the dynamic of time dilation in lieu of the "extra vector"; would you please elucidate this for me? I'm assuming you would agree, atomic clocks on board planes and space craft have proved time dilation is a real phenomenon.
Maxila
QUOTE (niels+Jul 24 2012, 11:29 PM)
Like everything in phenomenal world, the world that is popularily being referred to as REAL PHYSICAL WORLD, in that world any and all events must be observed in order to be classified as real events. And this is the world that mainstream physics is about.
The term observer is suggested being replaced by the more modern Observer Team (family of observers) in which each observer makes observations in their immediate vicinity where delays are negligible, cooperating with the rest of the team to set up synchronized clocks across the entire region of observation, and all team members sending their various results back to a data collector for synthesis.
Well well well, now we are dealing with light, a physical reality and something that has the highest / fastest propagation through the medium, a speed that by many is said to be equivalent to the speed of physical information (at least in a weldefined scale that I call the qubit of photon in the scale of human physical senses). In this context it is impossible for me to imagine how anything can be synchronized meaningfully in order to determine if light propagates through the medium like a one vector or in any other configuration, respectively. I would like to think that light propagates in the configuration of a sphere and radiating with a speed of c in all directions, until being interfered with. This implicate that the observer will ALWAYS see or measure light as a single vector, but with a God Eye it would be seen as a spherical radiation. This prediction is NOT a result of observation and experiment, because these tools are neither sufficiently accurate nor are they applicable in the context of getting insight into the medium (noumenal world). Here we are forced to use more sophisticated tools like the human imagination.
.
QUOTE
-- and what is the SOURCE of the momentum--
No that isn't my question. The question is does a beam of light move with a second vector imparted by the motion of the source. The progress of light at c is not considered the result of momentum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| -- and what is the SOURCE of the momentum-- |
No that isn't my question. The question is does a beam of light move with a second vector imparted by the motion of the source. The progress of light at c is not considered the result of momentum.
Let me start with a question why it is believed that light beam propagates in spacetime (the medium) as a single vector --
I would say that it is known, not believed and there is so much to support it that I hardly know where to begin. But a simple modern example would be a laser, if the coherent beam from a laser had additional vectors it wouldn't be near as useful as it is. Lasers are now used to do all kinds of measuring, leveling etc. All would be chaos if the light wasn't in a single vector.
The following is quoted from your post but for some unknown reason I can't get a box around it.
"Likewise my ranting was specifically addressing your second question about SOURCE of momentum, or what I would like to call the SOURCE of ENERGY needed to propagate photon through the medium. May I suggest that you reread my post, and with all your imagination being involved (think like a possibilian and not as a restrictionist, and perhaps you will get a gist of what I am proposing)."
Spacetime is not usually considered a medium in the propagation of light though I guess some may be saying that now. To imagine that light must have a medium puts the reasoning about what light waves are back to pre-Relativity. Trying to have a one to one analogy to waves in water and sound waves is the bugaboo.
Once again light moving at c, its only vector, is not considered to be moving because of momentum. And the source of energy for the propagation of light is no great mystery the AA batteries in my Mini Maglight is source enough and so is the chemical reactions in the belly of a firefly. No imaginative new theories are needed.
I skipped over the part of this post of yours that is another rant but I will attempt to answer that part now. Einstein was a pioneer in 'minds eye' observations. All of his thought problems employ them. In addition all observation of atomic and subatomic phenom must employ this method to make any sense of it at all. No one has ever seen an electron or proton, they must be mind's eye observed to be understood at all.
QUOTE
Likewise my ranting was specifically addressing your second question about SOURCE of momentum, or what I would like to call the SOURCE of ENERGY needed to propagate photon through the medium. May I suggest that you reread my post, and with all your imagination being involved (think like a possibilian and not as a restrictionist, and perhaps you will get a gist of what I am proposing).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Likewise my ranting was specifically addressing your second question about SOURCE of momentum, or what I would like to call the SOURCE of ENERGY needed to propagate photon through the medium. May I suggest that you reread my post, and with all your imagination being involved (think like a possibilian and not as a restrictionist, and perhaps you will get a gist of what I am proposing). |
Likewise my ranting was specifically addressing your second question about SOURCE of momentum, or what I would like to call the SOURCE of ENERGY needed to propagate photon through the medium. May I suggest that you reread my post, and with all your imagination being involved (think like a possibilian and not as a restrictionist, and perhaps you will get a gist of what I am proposing).
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jul 25 2012, 12:00 AM)
One vector at C.
However the wavelength of the light is Doppler shifted according to the transverse Doppler effect.
Speed of light postulate = speed of light is the same for every observer.
Thanks for your reply. I am not familiar with the 'traverse Doppler effect'. Can you explain or give a source that does explain it.
However the wavelength of the light is Doppler shifted according to the transverse Doppler effect.
Speed of light postulate = speed of light is the same for every observer.
Thanks for your reply. I am not familiar with the 'traverse Doppler effect'. Can you explain or give a source that does explain it.
QUOTE (Maxila+Jul 25 2012, 01:20 AM)
I've read your posts and I'm not sure what you are saying is the dynamic of time dilation in lieu of the "extra vector"; would you please elucidate this for me? I'm assuming you would agree, atomic clocks on board planes and space craft have proved time dilation is a real phenomenon.
Maxila
QUOTE
I've read your posts and I'm not sure what you are saying is the dynamic of time dilation in lieu of the "extra vector"; would you please elucidate this for me?
Without the extra vector to keep the light moving with the source there is no evidence of time dilation and no need for Lorentz Transformations to determine exactly how much dilation there is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've read your posts and I'm not sure what you are saying is the dynamic of time dilation in lieu of the "extra vector"; would you please elucidate this for me? |
Without the extra vector to keep the light moving with the source there is no evidence of time dilation and no need for Lorentz Transformations to determine exactly how much dilation there is.
I'm assuming you would agree, atomic clocks on board planes and space craft have proved time dilation is a real phenomenon.
I don't have details at my fingertips but I have read about these experiments. The Idea that you could prove relativistic time dilation by flying any so called 'identical atomic clocks' on jet planes is somewhat ludicrous. Jet planes don't fly anywhere near fast enough to garner significant results. Furthermore the Jet plane experiment I read about took place in the 70s which by today's standards was the dark ages for atomic clocks. Consider this, even the best of today's atomic clocks have to have a correction mechanism built into them to keep them accurate to their full potential. The reliability of the ones from the 70s was no where near perfect. Given that and the extremely slow relativistic speeds of jet planes I think that one is suspect at best.
I haven't read any definitive discussion of clocks on space probes and while it is true that they are perhaps a little closer to relativistic speeds the effect will still be extremely small. Space probes have not achieved speeds any where near 50,000mph and that is only about .000075c. One of the problems in all experimentation designed to prove what is already believed is that the designer of the experiment is often ready to use scant evidence to claim positive results. Often he is compelled to do that because of the expense of the endeavor if nothing else.
One other common feature of experimentation that is designed to 'prove' a predetermined conclusion is that there is usually little or no effort expended on looking for alternative explanations for the results. Always remember this, no clock that was ever made directly measures time. They all measure something that we consider to be dependably analogous to some specific amount of time. Draw your own conclusions.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 25 2012, 07:22 AM)
Furthermore the Jet plane experiment I read about took place in the 70s which by today's standards was the dark ages for atomic clocks. Consider this, even the best of today's atomic clocks have to have a correction mechanism built into them to keep them accurate to their full potential.
You are correct that a single experiment using atomic clocks on jet planes would not be conclusive, there is much additional evidence, including a limited repeat of the aircraft test in 2005 by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
There is muon decay:
“The lifetime of muons, if they do not move, has been measured in laboratories. Now, if you measure the lifetime of muons moving at a very high speed (close to the speed of light), you notice that it is much longer than the lifetime of the stationary muons.
It is easy to measure speed of muons. Then it is possible to calculate their lifetime in our frame of reference. Physicists compared the prediction from relativity theory and the results of experiment, and they matched very well.
Conclusion: Moving muons live longer in our frame of reference; than in their own, therefore they can reach Earth.” See Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.”
http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
The Global Positioning System:
GPS takes into account gravitational, and relativistic velocity, time dilation; the clocks in those satellites are set to run slow relative to clock's on the Earth’s surface so they run at the same rate in orbit, using relativistic formulas to predict and set the clocks frequency.
“The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects as described above, so that (as observed from the Earth's surface) they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
“For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations.”http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge.../Unit5/gps.html
I have studied the mechanisms of how clocks and humans have kept time extensively. The frequency unit such as, a day, a year, a second, hour, etc., is derived from a consistent change of position in space. Early humans used the Earth’s rotation and orbit, mechanical clocks use something like an oscillating flywheel or pendulum, quarts clocks use an oscillating quartz crystal, while atomic clocks use a frequency generated by EM radiation. Time is relative to motion and distance in space as shown in the function of clocks and by the experimental evidence above which agree with the predictions of SR and GR.
Disputing that time dilation does not exist without a well defined argument pertaining to that evidence, which you have yet to make, that contains specific alternate explanations of that evidence, reeks of being uneducated and obtuse, counter to your claims otherwise.
Maxila
You are correct that a single experiment using atomic clocks on jet planes would not be conclusive, there is much additional evidence, including a limited repeat of the aircraft test in 2005 by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
There is muon decay:
“The lifetime of muons, if they do not move, has been measured in laboratories. Now, if you measure the lifetime of muons moving at a very high speed (close to the speed of light), you notice that it is much longer than the lifetime of the stationary muons.
It is easy to measure speed of muons. Then it is possible to calculate their lifetime in our frame of reference. Physicists compared the prediction from relativity theory and the results of experiment, and they matched very well.
Conclusion: Moving muons live longer in our frame of reference; than in their own, therefore they can reach Earth.” See Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.”
http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
The Global Positioning System:
GPS takes into account gravitational, and relativistic velocity, time dilation; the clocks in those satellites are set to run slow relative to clock's on the Earth’s surface so they run at the same rate in orbit, using relativistic formulas to predict and set the clocks frequency.
“The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects as described above, so that (as observed from the Earth's surface) they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
“For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations.”http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge.../Unit5/gps.html
QUOTE
Always remember this, no clock that was ever made directly measures time. They all measure something that we consider to be dependably analogous to some specific amount of time.
I have studied the mechanisms of how clocks and humans have kept time extensively. The frequency unit such as, a day, a year, a second, hour, etc., is derived from a consistent change of position in space. Early humans used the Earth’s rotation and orbit, mechanical clocks use something like an oscillating flywheel or pendulum, quarts clocks use an oscillating quartz crystal, while atomic clocks use a frequency generated by EM radiation. Time is relative to motion and distance in space as shown in the function of clocks and by the experimental evidence above which agree with the predictions of SR and GR.
Disputing that time dilation does not exist without a well defined argument pertaining to that evidence, which you have yet to make, that contains specific alternate explanations of that evidence, reeks of being uneducated and obtuse, counter to your claims otherwise.
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+Jul 25 2012, 05:41 PM)
You are correct that a single experiment using atomic clocks on jet planes would not be conclusive, there is much additional evidence, including a limited repeat of the aircraft test in 2005 by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention, perhaps I'm blind or went too fast but my argument about jet plane tests remains the same. Do the math yourself using the Lorentz Transformation for time. Then look the the graph on the wiki site and see where the result falls. there is no possibility that any such experiment used the best forms of atomic clocks that are available, the ones in the naval observatory that set the standard. They are not portable. Not to mention way too expensive to be used in such an experiment.
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention, perhaps I'm blind or went too fast but my argument about jet plane tests remains the same. Do the math yourself using the Lorentz Transformation for time. Then look the the graph on the wiki site and see where the result falls. there is no possibility that any such experiment used the best forms of atomic clocks that are available, the ones in the naval observatory that set the standard. They are not portable. Not to mention way too expensive to be used in such an experiment.
There is muon decay:
I have been aware of this argument about muons for some time. All I can say is the concept of relativistic dilation and contraction was in place long before muons were detected. It was a convenient way to explain the difference between the half life of lab muons and cosmic ray produced muons. It certainly does seem to fit but to the drgree that it is accepted it also blocks further investigation into the matter.
Correcting for a relativistic velocity that doesn't exist would be a strange thing to do indeed. All GPS satellites by necessity are in geosynchronous orbits. they wouldn't be useful otherwise. They may have been somewhat tweeked for gravity differences. There is a difference that is cumulative between GPS time and GMT because they run on Universal Atomic Time which doesn't add leap seconds as the other does.
Correcting for a relativistic velocity that doesn't exist would be a strange thing to do indeed. All GPS satellites by necessity are in geosynchronous orbits. they wouldn't be useful otherwise. They may have been somewhat tweeked for gravity differences. There is a difference that is cumulative between GPS time and GMT because they run on Universal Atomic Time which doesn't add leap seconds as the other does.
Disputing that time dilation does not exist without a well defined argument pertaining to that evidence, which you have yet to make, that contains specific alternate explanations of that evidence, reeks of being uneducated and obtuse, counter to your claims otherwise.
There is no other argument that needs to be made. I went back to the origin of the concept and showed how the Lorentz Transformations don't uphold the concept. In Special Relativity the Lorentz Transformations are the only proof Einstein ever offered for any of it. Now you would like to say that even though the original proof doesn't hold the concept just has to be true anyway. I have made no claims about my education and don't intend to now. Your bent to pigeonholing and marginalizing based on assumptions rears its ugly head once more. When you seek to put yourself up by trying to tear others down guess who gets hurt. It certainly isn't me.
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention, perhaps I'm blind or went too fast but my argument about jet plane tests remains the same. Do the math yourself using the Lorentz Transformation for time. Then look the the graph on the wiki site and see where the result falls. there is no possibility that any such experiment used the best forms of atomic clocks that are available, the ones in the naval observatory that set the standard. They are not portable. Not to mention way too expensive to be used in such an experiment.
I have been aware of this argument about muons for some time. All I can say is the concept of relativistic dilation and contraction was in place long before muons were detected. It was a convenient way to explain the difference between the half life of lab muons and cosmic ray produced muons. It certainly does seem to fit but to the drgree that it is accepted it also blocks further investigation into the matter.
Correcting for a relativistic velocity that doesn't exist would be a strange thing to do indeed. All GPS satellites by necessity are in geosynchronous orbits. they wouldn't be useful otherwise. They may have been somewhat tweeked for gravity differences. There is a difference that is cumulative between GPS time and GMT because they run on Universal Atomic Time which doesn't add leap seconds as the other does.
There is no other argument that needs to be made. I went back to the origin of the concept and showed how the Lorentz Transformations don't uphold the concept. In Special Relativity the Lorentz Transformations are the only proof Einstein ever offered for any of it. Now you would like to say that even though the original proof doesn't hold the concept just has to be true anyway. I have made no claims about my education and don't intend to now. Your bent to pigeonholing and marginalizing based on assumptions rears its ugly head once more. When you seek to put yourself up by trying to tear others down guess who gets hurt. It certainly isn't me.
You're pretty much a clueless illiterate knucklehead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
QUOTE
including a limited repeat of the aircraft test in 2005 by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention, perhaps I'm blind or went too fast but my argument about jet plane tests remains the same. Do the math yourself using the Lorentz Transformation for time. Then look the the graph on the wiki site and see where the result falls. there is no possibility that any such experiment used the best forms of atomic clocks that are available, the ones in the naval observatory that set the standard. They are not portable. Not to mention way too expensive to be used in such an experiment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| including a limited repeat of the aircraft test in 2005 by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation |
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention, perhaps I'm blind or went too fast but my argument about jet plane tests remains the same. Do the math yourself using the Lorentz Transformation for time. Then look the the graph on the wiki site and see where the result falls. there is no possibility that any such experiment used the best forms of atomic clocks that are available, the ones in the naval observatory that set the standard. They are not portable. Not to mention way too expensive to be used in such an experiment.
There is muon decay:
I have been aware of this argument about muons for some time. All I can say is the concept of relativistic dilation and contraction was in place long before muons were detected. It was a convenient way to explain the difference between the half life of lab muons and cosmic ray produced muons. It certainly does seem to fit but to the drgree that it is accepted it also blocks further investigation into the matter.
QUOTE
The Global Positioning System: GPS takes into account gravitational, and relativistic velocity, time dilation; the clocks in those satellites are set to run slow relative to clock's on the Earth’s surface so they run at the same rate in orbit, using relativistic formulas to predict and set the clocks frequency.
Correcting for a relativistic velocity that doesn't exist would be a strange thing to do indeed. All GPS satellites by necessity are in geosynchronous orbits. they wouldn't be useful otherwise. They may have been somewhat tweeked for gravity differences. There is a difference that is cumulative between GPS time and GMT because they run on Universal Atomic Time which doesn't add leap seconds as the other does.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Global Positioning System: GPS takes into account gravitational, and relativistic velocity, time dilation; the clocks in those satellites are set to run slow relative to clock's on the Earth’s surface so they run at the same rate in orbit, using relativistic formulas to predict and set the clocks frequency. |
Correcting for a relativistic velocity that doesn't exist would be a strange thing to do indeed. All GPS satellites by necessity are in geosynchronous orbits. they wouldn't be useful otherwise. They may have been somewhat tweeked for gravity differences. There is a difference that is cumulative between GPS time and GMT because they run on Universal Atomic Time which doesn't add leap seconds as the other does.
Disputing that time dilation does not exist without a well defined argument pertaining to that evidence, which you have yet to make, that contains specific alternate explanations of that evidence, reeks of being uneducated and obtuse, counter to your claims otherwise.
There is no other argument that needs to be made. I went back to the origin of the concept and showed how the Lorentz Transformations don't uphold the concept. In Special Relativity the Lorentz Transformations are the only proof Einstein ever offered for any of it. Now you would like to say that even though the original proof doesn't hold the concept just has to be true anyway. I have made no claims about my education and don't intend to now. Your bent to pigeonholing and marginalizing based on assumptions rears its ugly head once more. When you seek to put yourself up by trying to tear others down guess who gets hurt. It certainly isn't me.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 25 2012, 08:23 PM)
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention, perhaps I'm blind or went too fast but my argument about jet plane tests remains the same. Do the math yourself using the Lorentz Transformation for time. Then look the the graph on the wiki site and see where the result falls. there is no possibility that any such experiment used the best forms of atomic clocks that are available, the ones in the naval observatory that set the standard. They are not portable. Not to mention way too expensive to be used in such an experiment.
I have been aware of this argument about muons for some time. All I can say is the concept of relativistic dilation and contraction was in place long before muons were detected. It was a convenient way to explain the difference between the half life of lab muons and cosmic ray produced muons. It certainly does seem to fit but to the drgree that it is accepted it also blocks further investigation into the matter.
Correcting for a relativistic velocity that doesn't exist would be a strange thing to do indeed. All GPS satellites by necessity are in geosynchronous orbits. they wouldn't be useful otherwise. They may have been somewhat tweeked for gravity differences. There is a difference that is cumulative between GPS time and GMT because they run on Universal Atomic Time which doesn't add leap seconds as the other does.
There is no other argument that needs to be made. I went back to the origin of the concept and showed how the Lorentz Transformations don't uphold the concept. In Special Relativity the Lorentz Transformations are the only proof Einstein ever offered for any of it. Now you would like to say that even though the original proof doesn't hold the concept just has to be true anyway. I have made no claims about my education and don't intend to now. Your bent to pigeonholing and marginalizing based on assumptions rears its ugly head once more. When you seek to put yourself up by trying to tear others down guess who gets hurt. It certainly isn't me.
You're pretty much a clueless illiterate knucklehead.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 24 2012, 10:39 PM)
so any smug belief you have in the loftiness and special keenness of your personal perspective is another absurdity. .
Well your pretty good at it . Is that a win win quote ?
Well your pretty good at it . Is that a win win quote ?
QUOTE (Maxila+Jul 25 2012, 05:41 PM)
You are correct that a single experiment using atomic clocks on jet planes would not be conclusive, there is much additional evidence, including a limited repeat of the aircraft test in 2005 by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 25 2012, 08:23 PM)
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention, perhaps I'm blind or went too fast but my argument about jet plane tests remains the same. Do the math yourself using the Lorentz Transformation for time. Then look the the graph on the wiki site and see where the result falls. there is no possibility that any such experiment used the best forms of atomic clocks that are available, the ones in the naval observatory that set the standard. They are not portable. Not to mention way too expensive to be used in such an experiment.
I believe blind is correct. The rest of this is a naked argument from personal ignorance and incredulity and doesn't weaken the published accounts.
Here is the Wikipedia hyperlink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...ed-effect_tests
Here is the section (emphasis added):
I believe blind is correct. The rest of this is a naked argument from personal ignorance and incredulity and doesn't weaken the published accounts.
Here is the Wikipedia hyperlink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...ed-effect_tests
Here is the section (emphasis added):
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Velocity and gravitational time dilation combined-effect tests
Here is the reference for [14]:
- Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip. Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanoseconds during the westward trip (where the error bars represent standard deviation).[13] In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom reported their limited replication of this experiment.[14] The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the caesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London–Washington D.C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.
- ....
Here is the reference for [14]:
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
14. http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/metromnia_issue18.pdf
And here are some of the relevant paragraphs:
And here are some of the relevant paragraphs:
QUOTE (NPL+)
To commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Keating and Hafele experiment, NPL featured in a BBC Horizon programme that involved flying a single caesium atomic clock from London to Washington and then back again. The timekeeping properties of atomic clocks had improved very significantly over the 25 years since the original experiment, and as a result relativistic effects would be observable following much shorter clock trips.
...
Before the start of the experiment, the travelling clock was compared directly against the UK’s national timescale at NPL, to establish both its offset and rate. During the flights the height, speed and estimated position of the aircraft were regularly monitored. From these measurements the following predictions were made regarding the expected time gain of the travelling clock relative to NPL’s reference timescale.
Results included:
...
Before the start of the experiment, the travelling clock was compared directly against the UK’s national timescale at NPL, to establish both its offset and rate. During the flights the height, speed and estimated position of the aircraft were regularly monitored. From these measurements the following predictions were made regarding the expected time gain of the travelling clock relative to NPL’s reference timescale.
Results included:
- The combined flight times of 14 hours and mean height in excess of 10 km resulted in a predicted clock gain of 53 ns. This followed the principle that a clock in a weaker gravitational field (higher altitude) will run faster.
- The effect of the aircraft’s speed relative to the Earth’s surface resulted in a predicted clock loss of 16.1 ns. This followed the principle that a moving clock runs slow.
He is a aether guy right ? Something he said . Medium of space or something like that
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 20 2012, 09:45 AM)
Does that mean it is sacred ground never to be challenged?
Ignoring the obvious crank overtones for a minute...
Incredulity is never a valid challenge to empirical evidence, so until you have an alternative model and the evidence to favor it over anything else, you haven't even broached making a challenge.
Nothing sacred about it except sticking to the methodology of objective science.
I pointed you to tests a special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity) not just time dilation. So where are you getting this fixation on that particular aspect?
Is this the specific "part" of relativity you are in denial about? (Wasn't there someone else around here who use to deny "parts" of relativity? I wonder what this guy's IQ is.)
I pointed you to tests a special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity) not just time dilation. So where are you getting this fixation on that particular aspect?
Is this the specific "part" of relativity you are in denial about? (Wasn't there someone else around here who use to deny "parts" of relativity? I wonder what this guy's IQ is.)
In my trip through the past I read many of your posts. Quite a few of them actually are thoughtful and pertain to the subject. But sometimes you go raw and get judgmental in a vein similar to his. You did that with me. You became judgmental, taunting and disrespectful and presumably believe it is justified. The unhappy fact is that such treatment of others you pretend to engage is never justified. From a few revealing statements about myself you feel free to take pot shots that are so easy to jump to that you have no further means of actually knowing anything about me. You have no way to gauge the depth of my understanding of physics or the quality of my intellect simply by your judgment that I have one foolish thought that you and all science disagrees with plus a vulnerability or group of them you have easily uncovered.
It is your responsibility to DEMONSTRATE your understanding, not mine to guess. I'm no swami. If you cannot offer any empirical support of your claims then they are scientifically vacuous. I couldn't care less how that may make you feel, for good or bad. And you can save your preachy bs. No one cares.
Cranks very often cannot help but whine about how they are treated when they avoid offering ANYTHING to substantiate the least little bit of their naive incredulity.
Yet notice that you chose to whine about everything except engaging in the subject at hand.
Ignoring the obvious crank overtones for a minute...
Incredulity is never a valid challenge to empirical evidence, so until you have an alternative model and the evidence to favor it over anything else, you haven't even broached making a challenge.
Nothing sacred about it except sticking to the methodology of objective science.
QUOTE
I went to the site Synthsin75 provided a link to it and thought I needed some fact correcting education. Not because I am unfamiliar with dilation.
I pointed you to tests a special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity) not just time dilation. So where are you getting this fixation on that particular aspect?
Is this the specific "part" of relativity you are in denial about? (Wasn't there someone else around here who use to deny "parts" of relativity? I wonder what this guy's IQ is.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I went to the site Synthsin75 provided a link to it and thought I needed some fact correcting education. Not because I am unfamiliar with dilation. |
I pointed you to tests a special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity) not just time dilation. So where are you getting this fixation on that particular aspect?
Is this the specific "part" of relativity you are in denial about? (Wasn't there someone else around here who use to deny "parts" of relativity? I wonder what this guy's IQ is.)
In my trip through the past I read many of your posts. Quite a few of them actually are thoughtful and pertain to the subject. But sometimes you go raw and get judgmental in a vein similar to his. You did that with me. You became judgmental, taunting and disrespectful and presumably believe it is justified. The unhappy fact is that such treatment of others you pretend to engage is never justified. From a few revealing statements about myself you feel free to take pot shots that are so easy to jump to that you have no further means of actually knowing anything about me. You have no way to gauge the depth of my understanding of physics or the quality of my intellect simply by your judgment that I have one foolish thought that you and all science disagrees with plus a vulnerability or group of them you have easily uncovered.
It is your responsibility to DEMONSTRATE your understanding, not mine to guess. I'm no swami. If you cannot offer any empirical support of your claims then they are scientifically vacuous. I couldn't care less how that may make you feel, for good or bad. And you can save your preachy bs. No one cares.
Cranks very often cannot help but whine about how they are treated when they avoid offering ANYTHING to substantiate the least little bit of their naive incredulity.
QUOTE
I have not chosen to disengage with you because I see worthy engagement and clear reasoning in many of your posts.
Yet notice that you chose to whine about everything except engaging in the subject at hand.
QUOTE (Maxila+Jul 25 2012, 11:41 AM)
You are correct that a single experiment using atomic clocks on jet planes would not be conclusive, there is much additional evidence, including a limited repeat of the aircraft test in 2005 by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
There is muon decay:
“The lifetime of muons, if they do not move, has been measured in laboratories. Now, if you measure the lifetime of muons moving at a very high speed (close to the speed of light), you notice that it is much longer than the lifetime of the stationary muons.
It is easy to measure speed of muons. Then it is possible to calculate their lifetime in our frame of reference. Physicists compared the prediction from relativity theory and the results of experiment, and they matched very well.
Conclusion: Moving muons live longer in our frame of reference; than in their own, therefore they can reach Earth.” See Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.”
http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
The Global Positioning System:
GPS takes into account gravitational, and relativistic velocity, time dilation; the clocks in those satellites are set to run slow relative to clock's on the Earth’s surface so they run at the same rate in orbit, using relativistic formulas to predict and set the clocks frequency.
“The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects as described above, so that (as observed from the Earth's surface) they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
“For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations.”http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge.../Unit5/gps.html
I have studied the mechanisms of how clocks and humans have kept time extensively. The frequency unit such as, a day, a year, a second, hour, etc., is derived from a consistent change of position in space. Early humans used the Earth’s rotation and orbit, mechanical clocks use something like an oscillating flywheel or pendulum, quarts clocks use an oscillating quartz crystal, while atomic clocks use a frequency generated by EM radiation. Time is relative to motion and distance in space as shown in the function of clocks and by the experimental evidence above which agree with the predictions of SR and GR.
Disputing that time dilation does not exist without a well defined argument pertaining to that evidence, which you have yet to make, that contains specific alternate explanations of that evidence, reeks of being uneducated and obtuse, counter to your claims otherwise.
Maxila
Very solid post, Maxila. Credit where credit is due.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
There is muon decay:
“The lifetime of muons, if they do not move, has been measured in laboratories. Now, if you measure the lifetime of muons moving at a very high speed (close to the speed of light), you notice that it is much longer than the lifetime of the stationary muons.
It is easy to measure speed of muons. Then it is possible to calculate their lifetime in our frame of reference. Physicists compared the prediction from relativity theory and the results of experiment, and they matched very well.
Conclusion: Moving muons live longer in our frame of reference; than in their own, therefore they can reach Earth.” See Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.”
http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
The Global Positioning System:
GPS takes into account gravitational, and relativistic velocity, time dilation; the clocks in those satellites are set to run slow relative to clock's on the Earth’s surface so they run at the same rate in orbit, using relativistic formulas to predict and set the clocks frequency.
“The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects as described above, so that (as observed from the Earth's surface) they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation...al_confirmation
“For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations.”http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge.../Unit5/gps.html
I have studied the mechanisms of how clocks and humans have kept time extensively. The frequency unit such as, a day, a year, a second, hour, etc., is derived from a consistent change of position in space. Early humans used the Earth’s rotation and orbit, mechanical clocks use something like an oscillating flywheel or pendulum, quarts clocks use an oscillating quartz crystal, while atomic clocks use a frequency generated by EM radiation. Time is relative to motion and distance in space as shown in the function of clocks and by the experimental evidence above which agree with the predictions of SR and GR.
Disputing that time dilation does not exist without a well defined argument pertaining to that evidence, which you have yet to make, that contains specific alternate explanations of that evidence, reeks of being uneducated and obtuse, counter to your claims otherwise.
Maxila
Very solid post, Maxila. Credit where credit is due.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 25 2012, 07:57 PM)
Very solid post, Maxila. Credit where credit is due.
Thank you, there is no reason we can't disagree at times, yet remain civil in our conversations. I will venture to follow my own advice and your lead in future conversations.
Maxila
Thank you, there is no reason we can't disagree at times, yet remain civil in our conversations. I will venture to follow my own advice and your lead in future conversations.
Maxila
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 25 2012, 03:23 PM)
Correcting for a relativistic velocity that doesn't exist would be a strange thing to do indeed. All GPS satellites by necessity are in geosynchronous orbits. they wouldn't be useful otherwise. They may have been somewhat tweeked for gravity differences. There is a difference that is cumulative between GPS time and GMT because they run on Universal Atomic Time which doesn't add leap seconds as the other does.
That is a flawed argument, even in geosynchronous orbit the satellites travel at a greater relative velocity than an observer on the Earth's surface. For example, if I swing a bat, the end of the bat is moving at a greater relative velocity than my hands and body near the bat's handle; the equator moves at a greater relative velocity to the poles or lesser latitudes.
If one could extend a bat to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, the end of the bat and the satellite is going at a greater relative velocity than the observer at the bat's handle. Be sure, a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is moving at a greater relative velocity than a fixed observer on the Earth's surface.
You haven't shown that, you made a statement with no supporting evidence or formulas. If you can support that claim with more than speculative supposition that is also at odds with empirical evidence, please go ahead; explain muon decay, atomic clocks de-synchronization moving at different relative velocities, and the corrections needed for GPS clocks in geosynchronous orbit?
You haven't shown that, you made a statement with no supporting evidence or formulas. If you can support that claim with more than speculative supposition that is also at odds with empirical evidence, please go ahead; explain muon decay, atomic clocks de-synchronization moving at different relative velocities, and the corrections needed for GPS clocks in geosynchronous orbit?
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention
Hopefully you saw rpenner was kind enough to provide links and paste the information you missed in a prior post.
Maxila
I believe blind is correct. The rest of this is a naked argument from personal ignorance and incredulity and doesn't weaken the published accounts.
Whether you wish to believe me or not I do go to all off the links you and the others provide. And I am neither blind, stupid or naive. I am capable of mistakes but willing to admit it when it is shown to be the case. For example I have egg all over my face from my statement that GPS satellites are geosyncronous. It was an assumption on my part based on my long experience with communications satellites.
It seems you all have the impression that I reject the results of the Jet plane experiments in their entirety. I suppose I have given that impression. I don’t argue with the results of any experiment. What all of my doubts go to is the interpretation of the meaning of the results. I have shown that the classic Lorentz Transformation proofs of time dilation is invalid based on the fact that they require a second motion vector for the light other than their progress at c. That then causes me to look for other explanations for experimental results that are said to prove dilation.
One thing that I haven’t mentioned is the fact that the gravity field equations are dependent on Lorentz Transformations as well. The clocks on planes experiments used the math of both Special and general Relativity to establish what they expected to find. So did Pound and Rebka for that matter. That seems to violate the taboo of physics that says you can’t use the math of a theory to prove the theory. I don’t doubt the blue shift of Pound Rebka or that the atomic clocks were speeded up. I wonder if anyone has investigated either of them using Newton’s Laws of gravity, Cartesian co-ordinates and Euclidian geometry.
There are many things that are dependent on the math of Relativity that I can’t explain in an alternate way. Most of them pertain to General Relativity. But there are a few important ones that I can offer alternate explanations for.
On the other hand E=mc2 stands up in spite of the fact that Einstein first developed it as part of Special Relativity.
I don’t have answers for everything but the problem I have demonstrated deserves serious thought and consideration. I am well aware that a huge portion the theories of both physics and cosmology as they stand today are dependent both on the co-variance provided by Lorentz Transformations and the concepts created by them. Time Dilation, Foreshortening and The universal speed limit as c are only the starting point, there are many more.
That is a flawed argument, even in geosynchronous orbit the satellites travel at a greater relative velocity than an observer on the Earth's surface. For example, if I swing a bat, the end of the bat is moving at a greater relative velocity than my hands and body near the bat's handle; the equator moves at a greater relative velocity to the poles or lesser latitudes.
If one could extend a bat to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, the end of the bat and the satellite is going at a greater relative velocity than the observer at the bat's handle. Be sure, a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is moving at a greater relative velocity than a fixed observer on the Earth's surface.
QUOTE
There is no other argument that needs to be made. I went back to the origin of the concept and showed how the Lorentz Transformations don't uphold the concept.
You haven't shown that, you made a statement with no supporting evidence or formulas. If you can support that claim with more than speculative supposition that is also at odds with empirical evidence, please go ahead; explain muon decay, atomic clocks de-synchronization moving at different relative velocities, and the corrections needed for GPS clocks in geosynchronous orbit?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no other argument that needs to be made. I went back to the origin of the concept and showed how the Lorentz Transformations don't uphold the concept. |
You haven't shown that, you made a statement with no supporting evidence or formulas. If you can support that claim with more than speculative supposition that is also at odds with empirical evidence, please go ahead; explain muon decay, atomic clocks de-synchronization moving at different relative velocities, and the corrections needed for GPS clocks in geosynchronous orbit?
I didn't find any reference to the 2005 experiment you mention
Hopefully you saw rpenner was kind enough to provide links and paste the information you missed in a prior post.
Maxila
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 26 2012, 12:50 AM)
Ignoring the obvious crank overtones for a minute...
Incredulity is never a valid challenge to empirical evidence, so until you have an alternative model and the evidence to favor it over anything else, you haven't even broached making a challenge.
Nothing sacred about it except sticking to the methodology of objective science.
I pointed you to tests a special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity) not just time dilation. So where are you getting this fixation on that particular aspect?
Is this the specific "part" of relativity you are in denial about? (Wasn't there someone else around here who use to deny "parts" of relativity? I wonder what this guy's IQ is.)
It is your responsibility to DEMONSTRATE your understanding, not mine to guess. I'm no swami. If you cannot offer any empirical support of your claims then they are scientifically vacuous. I couldn't care less how that may make you feel, for good or bad. And you can save your preachy bs. No one cares.
Cranks very often cannot help but whine about how they are treated when they avoid offering ANYTHING to substantiate the least little bit of their naive incredulity.
Yet notice that you chose to whine about everything except engaging in the subject at hand.
I think he might be the same guy with the fantasy 178 IQ. He thinks 'by necessity GPS orbits must be geosynchronous'. They orbit twice in 86.400s. For a commonsense reason 'better satellite coverage'.
Incredulity is never a valid challenge to empirical evidence, so until you have an alternative model and the evidence to favor it over anything else, you haven't even broached making a challenge.
Nothing sacred about it except sticking to the methodology of objective science.
I pointed you to tests a special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity) not just time dilation. So where are you getting this fixation on that particular aspect?
Is this the specific "part" of relativity you are in denial about? (Wasn't there someone else around here who use to deny "parts" of relativity? I wonder what this guy's IQ is.)
It is your responsibility to DEMONSTRATE your understanding, not mine to guess. I'm no swami. If you cannot offer any empirical support of your claims then they are scientifically vacuous. I couldn't care less how that may make you feel, for good or bad. And you can save your preachy bs. No one cares.
Cranks very often cannot help but whine about how they are treated when they avoid offering ANYTHING to substantiate the least little bit of their naive incredulity.
Yet notice that you chose to whine about everything except engaging in the subject at hand.
I think he might be the same guy with the fantasy 178 IQ. He thinks 'by necessity GPS orbits must be geosynchronous'. They orbit twice in 86.400s. For a commonsense reason 'better satellite coverage'.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 09:44 AM)
It is extremely naive to think that an observer in a moving vehicle will find a beam of light to be curved, as this is a simple experiment to make.
So synthsin75, if we observe a source rotating around a galactic center and that source continues to rotate and emit unblocked until the beam reaches the observer, is there a continuous straight light beam between the source now and the observer now? or is the continuous light beam between them curved? (regardless of whether the source is moving away from or towards the observer).
You can do a simple test by rotating a sparkler in a circle and taking a picture of it.
Make the sparkler circle 2 feet in diameter, set up your camera six and a bit feet away and match the exposure with the time it takes to make one rotation of the sparkler. The distance travelled by a light beam emitted from a rotating source during one complete galactic rotation equals Pi times the diameter of the sources galactic rotation and 6 and a bit feet divided by 2 feet also equals Pi. You also get Pi when you divide 13.7 by 4.265.
If you can get a single point of light in a genuine test picture I will concede.
So synthsin75, if we observe a source rotating around a galactic center and that source continues to rotate and emit unblocked until the beam reaches the observer, is there a continuous straight light beam between the source now and the observer now? or is the continuous light beam between them curved? (regardless of whether the source is moving away from or towards the observer).
You can do a simple test by rotating a sparkler in a circle and taking a picture of it.
Make the sparkler circle 2 feet in diameter, set up your camera six and a bit feet away and match the exposure with the time it takes to make one rotation of the sparkler. The distance travelled by a light beam emitted from a rotating source during one complete galactic rotation equals Pi times the diameter of the sources galactic rotation and 6 and a bit feet divided by 2 feet also equals Pi. You also get Pi when you divide 13.7 by 4.265.
If you can get a single point of light in a genuine test picture I will concede.
Here is a bit more detail, Pi is fascinating because, when derived from distances or time, it becomes a dimensionless constant.
If I started photographing the sparkler around 6 and a bit feet away, the circle was 2 feet in diameter and I captured the light from the spinning sparkler in one complete circle the ratio ( A ) of the distance between the rotating source and the observer over the diameter of rotation would be roughly equal to Pi. In this case the ratio ( B ) of the actual distance between source and observer over the distance travelled by light in a year would be very small and the ratio ( C ) of the observation period over the time it takes for the sparkler to be rotated once will equal one. All observations should have a width of field that covers the complete diameter of rotation of the source being observed.
If I halve the exposure period I get half a circle and capture half as much light and when I double the exposure period I get 2 circles over each other and twice as much light in my photograph. If the sparkler is rotated twice as fast I would expect something that looked similar to when I doubled the exposure period but I would also expect to capture the same amount of light from only one rotation despite the doubling of the speed of rotation. If I taped two sparklers together I could halve the exposure time and double the speed of rotation to capture a similar amount of light from 1 sparkler doing 1 complete rotation. If the sparkler was moved at an angle to me I would observe an oval instead of a circle but the amount of light captured would remain the same as for a complete circle.
In this simplest base context A = Pi, B = tiny, C = 1 and the observer will capture one complete cycle. On any scale where C >= 1 the observer will capture at least one complete cycle despite the size of B.
On any scale where A = Pi * x, B >= 1 and C < 1 the observer will only capture the light from B * C = x of one rotation during any observation regardless of the speed of rotation of the same object.
On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 230 million and C = 1/230 million you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation.
On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 4.2 billion and C = 1/4.2 billion you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation.
If I started photographing the sparkler around 6 and a bit feet away, the circle was 2 feet in diameter and I captured the light from the spinning sparkler in one complete circle the ratio ( A ) of the distance between the rotating source and the observer over the diameter of rotation would be roughly equal to Pi. In this case the ratio ( B ) of the actual distance between source and observer over the distance travelled by light in a year would be very small and the ratio ( C ) of the observation period over the time it takes for the sparkler to be rotated once will equal one. All observations should have a width of field that covers the complete diameter of rotation of the source being observed.
If I halve the exposure period I get half a circle and capture half as much light and when I double the exposure period I get 2 circles over each other and twice as much light in my photograph. If the sparkler is rotated twice as fast I would expect something that looked similar to when I doubled the exposure period but I would also expect to capture the same amount of light from only one rotation despite the doubling of the speed of rotation. If I taped two sparklers together I could halve the exposure time and double the speed of rotation to capture a similar amount of light from 1 sparkler doing 1 complete rotation. If the sparkler was moved at an angle to me I would observe an oval instead of a circle but the amount of light captured would remain the same as for a complete circle.
In this simplest base context A = Pi, B = tiny, C = 1 and the observer will capture one complete cycle. On any scale where C >= 1 the observer will capture at least one complete cycle despite the size of B.
On any scale where A = Pi * x, B >= 1 and C < 1 the observer will only capture the light from B * C = x of one rotation during any observation regardless of the speed of rotation of the same object.
On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 230 million and C = 1/230 million you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation.
On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 4.2 billion and C = 1/4.2 billion you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation.
Light always travels in a straight line (at a constant speed) from when and where it is emitted to when and where it is observed unless it is distorted or blocked. If the emitting source is rotating there will be a continuous curved light beam composed of the straight line quanta of light emitted from each physical location of the source during its physical rotation around its galactic center that goes directly towards the current location of the observer and exists in real time between both locations at the time the observation is made.
Surely any valid relative motions of (rotating) light theory, that we can use to accurately model observations of rotating sources both in the micro and the macro in pure euclidian space + time, would have to actually account for this physical curved light beam in its translation from lorenzian/minkowski space back into euclidian space for the final representation of the observational data and any valid comparison between different observational data sets?
If this curved light beam has been ignored it would not suprise me if the ratio of dark matter to normal matter is just the average number of galactic rotations of the output of all of the rotating emitting sources captured in the depth of fields of our observational data sets in proportion to their real masses.
Surely any valid relative motions of (rotating) light theory, that we can use to accurately model observations of rotating sources both in the micro and the macro in pure euclidian space + time, would have to actually account for this physical curved light beam in its translation from lorenzian/minkowski space back into euclidian space for the final representation of the observational data and any valid comparison between different observational data sets?
If this curved light beam has been ignored it would not suprise me if the ratio of dark matter to normal matter is just the average number of galactic rotations of the output of all of the rotating emitting sources captured in the depth of fields of our observational data sets in proportion to their real masses.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 25 2012, 10:41 PM)
I believe blind is correct. The rest of this is a naked argument from personal ignorance and incredulity and doesn't weaken the published accounts.
Whether you wish to believe me or not I do go to all off the links you and the others provide. And I am neither blind, stupid or naive. I am capable of mistakes but willing to admit it when it is shown to be the case. For example I have egg all over my face from my statement that GPS satellites are geosyncronous. It was an assumption on my part based on my long experience with communications satellites.
It seems you all have the impression that I reject the results of the Jet plane experiments in their entirety. I suppose I have given that impression. I don’t argue with the results of any experiment. What all of my doubts go to is the interpretation of the meaning of the results. I have shown that the classic Lorentz Transformation proofs of time dilation is invalid based on the fact that they require a second motion vector for the light other than their progress at c. That then causes me to look for other explanations for experimental results that are said to prove dilation.
One thing that I haven’t mentioned is the fact that the gravity field equations are dependent on Lorentz Transformations as well. The clocks on planes experiments used the math of both Special and general Relativity to establish what they expected to find. So did Pound and Rebka for that matter. That seems to violate the taboo of physics that says you can’t use the math of a theory to prove the theory. I don’t doubt the blue shift of Pound Rebka or that the atomic clocks were speeded up. I wonder if anyone has investigated either of them using Newton’s Laws of gravity, Cartesian co-ordinates and Euclidian geometry.
There are many things that are dependent on the math of Relativity that I can’t explain in an alternate way. Most of them pertain to General Relativity. But there are a few important ones that I can offer alternate explanations for.
On the other hand E=mc2 stands up in spite of the fact that Einstein first developed it as part of Special Relativity.
I don’t have answers for everything but the problem I have demonstrated deserves serious thought and consideration. I am well aware that a huge portion the theories of both physics and cosmology as they stand today are dependent both on the co-variance provided by Lorentz Transformations and the concepts created by them. Time Dilation, Foreshortening and The universal speed limit as c are only the starting point, there are many more.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 27 2012, 12:52 AM)
I think he might be the same guy with the fantasy 178 IQ. He thinks 'by necessity GPS orbits must be geosynchronous'. They orbit twice in 86.400s. For a commonsense reason 'better satellite coverage'.
I stand corrected on the subject of GPS orbits. On checking I did find that they are not geosyncronous. the 24h you mention is sidereal time. Just to quibble a bit that's 23h 56m earth time.
I've made no claim about my IQ. If I did no matter what I said it would it would just be fodder for the hyenas, jackals and jackasses who roam around looking for what they deem a weakness ripe for attack. Would you care to state yours to see if I'm right. And no I'm not starting a game of I tell you mine if you tell me yours. I couldn't care less what your IQ is. I am interested only in any thoughts you have that pertain to the subject of the threads you post on.
I stand corrected on the subject of GPS orbits. On checking I did find that they are not geosyncronous. the 24h you mention is sidereal time. Just to quibble a bit that's 23h 56m earth time.
I've made no claim about my IQ. If I did no matter what I said it would it would just be fodder for the hyenas, jackals and jackasses who roam around looking for what they deem a weakness ripe for attack. Would you care to state yours to see if I'm right. And no I'm not starting a game of I tell you mine if you tell me yours. I couldn't care less what your IQ is. I am interested only in any thoughts you have that pertain to the subject of the threads you post on.
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 27 2012, 12:21 PM)
Light always travels in a straight line (at a constant speed) from when and where it is emitted to when and where it is observed unless it is distorted or blocked. If the emitting source is rotating there will be a continuous curved light beam composed of the straight line quanta of light emitted from each physical location of the source during its physical rotation around its galactic center that goes directly towards the current location of the observer and exists in real time between both locations at the time the observation is made.
Surely any valid relative motions of (rotating) light theory, that we can use to accurately model observations of rotating sources both in the micro and the macro in pure euclidian space + time, would have to actually account for this physical curved light beam in its translation from lorenzian/minkowski space back into euclidian space for the final representation of the observational data and any valid comparison between different observational data sets?
If this curved light beam has been ignored it would not suprise me if the ratio of dark matter to normal matter is just the average number of galactic rotations of the output of all of the rotating emitting sources captured in the depth of fields of our observational data sets in proportion to their real masses.
You have made several posts but I will sum it all up in one reply. You imaginative thought experiment with the sparkler and camera leads you to a conclusion that in fact contains a common misconception. That circle of light you see doesn't give you a view of light following that circular path. All of the light from a point source is emitted in rays that all proceed at c in straight lines in every conceivable direction from that point. It is interesting that you use a sparkle because if you 'see' a complete circle of light, that circle is actually created in your eyes by traces. these occur when the light source is relatively bright and your surroundings otherwise quite dark meaning your pupils will be dilated.
If you use a camera with a high shutter speed it will show the light clearly as individual sparks. Slow the speed down enough and it will take a picture that looks like the ring of light you see.
If you are familiar with the kinds of thought problems discussed earlier in this thread, they all presume that light rays from a distant source can be witnessed from a remote side on view even by distant observers. That is not the case. What any observer seeing what he terms a side on view of a beam of light sees is a small portion of the beam reflected from particles of dust and moisture suspended in the atmosphere. Take away those particles (or remove all the air as Einstein did in section 7 of "Relativity") You won't see anything at all. The only light we can ever see is light that heads directly into our eyes in straight lines at c. These straight line paths can be bent by gravity and far more importantly, by lens, but after that bending takes place it all still follows straight line paths. We would never see anything but blurs if we didn't have lenses in our eyes.
[Moderator: This poster is suspended 10 days for being a lazy, intellectually dishonest, anti-scientific poster and clinging to specious preconceptions in the fact of multiple reports, because that's what moderators do.]
Surely any valid relative motions of (rotating) light theory, that we can use to accurately model observations of rotating sources both in the micro and the macro in pure euclidian space + time, would have to actually account for this physical curved light beam in its translation from lorenzian/minkowski space back into euclidian space for the final representation of the observational data and any valid comparison between different observational data sets?
If this curved light beam has been ignored it would not suprise me if the ratio of dark matter to normal matter is just the average number of galactic rotations of the output of all of the rotating emitting sources captured in the depth of fields of our observational data sets in proportion to their real masses.
You have made several posts but I will sum it all up in one reply. You imaginative thought experiment with the sparkler and camera leads you to a conclusion that in fact contains a common misconception. That circle of light you see doesn't give you a view of light following that circular path. All of the light from a point source is emitted in rays that all proceed at c in straight lines in every conceivable direction from that point. It is interesting that you use a sparkle because if you 'see' a complete circle of light, that circle is actually created in your eyes by traces. these occur when the light source is relatively bright and your surroundings otherwise quite dark meaning your pupils will be dilated.
If you use a camera with a high shutter speed it will show the light clearly as individual sparks. Slow the speed down enough and it will take a picture that looks like the ring of light you see.
If you are familiar with the kinds of thought problems discussed earlier in this thread, they all presume that light rays from a distant source can be witnessed from a remote side on view even by distant observers. That is not the case. What any observer seeing what he terms a side on view of a beam of light sees is a small portion of the beam reflected from particles of dust and moisture suspended in the atmosphere. Take away those particles (or remove all the air as Einstein did in section 7 of "Relativity") You won't see anything at all. The only light we can ever see is light that heads directly into our eyes in straight lines at c. These straight line paths can be bent by gravity and far more importantly, by lens, but after that bending takes place it all still follows straight line paths. We would never see anything but blurs if we didn't have lenses in our eyes.
[Moderator: This poster is suspended 10 days for being a lazy, intellectually dishonest, anti-scientific poster and clinging to specious preconceptions in the fact of multiple reports, because that's what moderators do.]
What a geosynchronous orbit and the time shift demonstrate is that relative reference can be misleading. Since there is no relative motion, between the surface and the geosynchronous orbit, we would assume both clocks should be the same, but they are not. To explain this discrepancy you need to do an energy balance. The satellite is moving faster and therefore has more kinetic energy even though there is no relative reference motion.
This is why Einstein added the mass term to special relativity. The mass term requires we do an energy balance and not just depend on the relative motion in space-time. In this case the orbital has more relativistic mass/energy which will imply a different space-time. Or the SR mass/energy or relativistic mass has the potential energy to move space and time, regardless of what the relative reference (zero relative velocity) seemed to indicate.
This is why Einstein added the mass term to special relativity. The mass term requires we do an energy balance and not just depend on the relative motion in space-time. In this case the orbital has more relativistic mass/energy which will imply a different space-time. Or the SR mass/energy or relativistic mass has the potential energy to move space and time, regardless of what the relative reference (zero relative velocity) seemed to indicate.
QUOTE (MDT+Jul 27 2012, 08:13 AM)
What a geosynchronous orbit and the time shift demonstrate is that relative reference can be misleading. Since there is no relative motion, between the surface and the geosynchronous orbit, we would assume both clocks should be the same, but they are not. To explain this discrepancy you need to do an energy balance. The satellite is moving faster and therefore has more kinetic energy even though there is no relative reference motion.
This is why Einstein added the mass term to special relativity. The mass term requires we do an energy balance and not just depend on the relative motion in space-time. In this case the orbital has more relativistic mass/energy which will imply a different space-time. Or the SR mass/energy or relativistic mass has the potential energy to move space and time, regardless of what the relative reference (zero relative velocity) seemed to indicate.
If you're referring to GPS. they aren't in geosynchronous orbits. They're in MEO orbits. And even if they were in geosynchronous orbits that doesn't mean they aren't in relative motion. In fact that means they are moving much faster than the surface of the earth. Unless you want to add spin to your frame which seriously complicates the metric, but since you haven't got special relativity down yet I really don't think you would get anything out of trying to do this. As for what you think Einstein did, your night time dreams aren't a good place to learn about physics history.
This is why Einstein added the mass term to special relativity. The mass term requires we do an energy balance and not just depend on the relative motion in space-time. In this case the orbital has more relativistic mass/energy which will imply a different space-time. Or the SR mass/energy or relativistic mass has the potential energy to move space and time, regardless of what the relative reference (zero relative velocity) seemed to indicate.
If you're referring to GPS. they aren't in geosynchronous orbits. They're in MEO orbits. And even if they were in geosynchronous orbits that doesn't mean they aren't in relative motion. In fact that means they are moving much faster than the surface of the earth. Unless you want to add spin to your frame which seriously complicates the metric, but since you haven't got special relativity down yet I really don't think you would get anything out of trying to do this. As for what you think Einstein did, your night time dreams aren't a good place to learn about physics history.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 28 2012, 01:07 AM)
I have shown that the classic Lorentz Transformation proofs of time dilation is invalid based on the fact that they require a second motion vector for the light other than their progress at c.
...
That circle of light you see doesn't give you a view of light following that circular path. All of the light from a point source is emitted in rays that all proceed at c in straight lines in every conceivable direction from that point.
Hi Electroman,
These two statements are inconsistent with each other.
...
That circle of light you see doesn't give you a view of light following that circular path. All of the light from a point source is emitted in rays that all proceed at c in straight lines in every conceivable direction from that point.
Hi Electroman,
These two statements are inconsistent with each other.
QUOTE (MDT+Jul 27 2012, 03:13 PM)
What a geosynchronous orbit and the time shift demonstrate is that relative reference can be misleading. Since there is no relative motion, between the surface and the geosynchronous orbit, we would assume both clocks should be the same, but they are not. To explain this discrepancy you need to do an energy balance. The satellite is moving faster and therefore has more kinetic energy even though there is no relative reference motion.
This is why Einstein added the mass term to special relativity. The mass term requires we do an energy balance and not just depend on the relative motion in space-time. In this case the orbital has more relativistic mass/energy which will imply a different space-time. Or the SR mass/energy or relativistic mass has the potential energy to move space and time, regardless of what the relative reference (zero relative velocity) seemed to indicate.
Being stupid must be fun for you. Try doing a bit of research before sticking your foot in your mouth.
This is why Einstein added the mass term to special relativity. The mass term requires we do an energy balance and not just depend on the relative motion in space-time. In this case the orbital has more relativistic mass/energy which will imply a different space-time. Or the SR mass/energy or relativistic mass has the potential energy to move space and time, regardless of what the relative reference (zero relative velocity) seemed to indicate.
Being stupid must be fun for you. Try doing a bit of research before sticking your foot in your mouth.
QUOTE (Electroman+Jul 27 2012, 03:07 PM)
You have made several posts but I will sum it all up in one reply. You imaginative thought experiment with the sparkler and camera leads you to a conclusion that in fact contains a common misconception. That circle of light you see doesn't give you a view of light following that circular path. All of the light from a point source is emitted in rays that all proceed at c in straight lines in every conceivable direction from that point. It is interesting that you use a sparkle because if you 'see' a complete circle of light, that circle is actually created in your eyes by traces. these occur when the light source is relatively bright and your surroundings otherwise quite dark meaning your pupils will be dilated.
If you use a camera with a high shutter speed it will show the light clearly as individual sparks. Slow the speed down enough and it will take a picture that looks like the ring of light you see.
If you are familiar with the kinds of thought problems discussed earlier in this thread, they all presume that light rays from a distant source can be witnessed from a remote side on view even by distant observers. That is not the case. What any observer seeing what he terms a side on view of a beam of light sees is a small portion of the beam reflected from particles of dust and moisture suspended in the atmosphere. Take away those particles (or remove all the air as Einstein did in section 7 of "Relativity") You won't see anything at all. The only light we can ever see is light that heads directly into our eyes in straight lines at c. These straight line paths can be bent by gravity and far more importantly, by lens, but after that bending takes place it all still follows straight line paths. We would never see anything but blurs if we didn't have lenses in our eyes.
[Moderator: This poster is suspended 10 days for being a lazy, intellectually dishonest, anti-scientific poster and clinging to specious preconceptions in the fact of multiple reports, because that's what moderators do.]
When intellectual dishonesty becomes the fulcrum it's time for reflection. James Bond escorting the Queen to the Olympic Games Opening Ceremony. Cool.
If you use a camera with a high shutter speed it will show the light clearly as individual sparks. Slow the speed down enough and it will take a picture that looks like the ring of light you see.
If you are familiar with the kinds of thought problems discussed earlier in this thread, they all presume that light rays from a distant source can be witnessed from a remote side on view even by distant observers. That is not the case. What any observer seeing what he terms a side on view of a beam of light sees is a small portion of the beam reflected from particles of dust and moisture suspended in the atmosphere. Take away those particles (or remove all the air as Einstein did in section 7 of "Relativity") You won't see anything at all. The only light we can ever see is light that heads directly into our eyes in straight lines at c. These straight line paths can be bent by gravity and far more importantly, by lens, but after that bending takes place it all still follows straight line paths. We would never see anything but blurs if we didn't have lenses in our eyes.
[Moderator: This poster is suspended 10 days for being a lazy, intellectually dishonest, anti-scientific poster and clinging to specious preconceptions in the fact of multiple reports, because that's what moderators do.]
When intellectual dishonesty becomes the fulcrum it's time for reflection. James Bond escorting the Queen to the Olympic Games Opening Ceremony. Cool.
VERRRY entertaining, and I respect the replies here.However, do not think light cannot travel in circles. In 2005 I wrote a study describing this.
QUOTE (Albers+Jul 28 2012, 02:22 PM)
VERRRY entertaining, and I respect the replies here.However, do not think light cannot travel in circles. In 2005 I wrote a study describing this.
Hi Albers,
Light beams only travel in circles in feedback loops.
It's not the light that travels in a circle in this case it is the source that rotates in a circle forming a continuous curved spiral light beam between the source and the observer at the location and time of the observation. If you observe the light from one complete rotation you will see a circle.
You also have to consider that while an accumulated exposure time of 6 months or so (half a ly) for HST ultra deep field imaging etc might not be considered sufficient to capture a complete circle, all of the observed HST deep field galaxies are circular/oval shaped so the optical depth of field must at least be the diameter of the largest galaxy captured. The recent discovery that many of the earlier ultra deep field galaxys are not round/oval may also indicate that we are capturing less than one complete galactic rotation in these images.
It's just seems strange that the latest calculation for the birth of our solar system multiplied by Pi is very close to the time back to the big bang. i.e. the distance back to the big bang is equivalent to the distance that light would travel from an emitting source with a galactic diameter of rotation of around 4.265 billion ly during one complete galactic rotation.
Hi Albers,
Light beams only travel in circles in feedback loops.
It's not the light that travels in a circle in this case it is the source that rotates in a circle forming a continuous curved spiral light beam between the source and the observer at the location and time of the observation. If you observe the light from one complete rotation you will see a circle.
You also have to consider that while an accumulated exposure time of 6 months or so (half a ly) for HST ultra deep field imaging etc might not be considered sufficient to capture a complete circle, all of the observed HST deep field galaxies are circular/oval shaped so the optical depth of field must at least be the diameter of the largest galaxy captured. The recent discovery that many of the earlier ultra deep field galaxys are not round/oval may also indicate that we are capturing less than one complete galactic rotation in these images.
It's just seems strange that the latest calculation for the birth of our solar system multiplied by Pi is very close to the time back to the big bang. i.e. the distance back to the big bang is equivalent to the distance that light would travel from an emitting source with a galactic diameter of rotation of around 4.265 billion ly during one complete galactic rotation.
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 27 2012, 02:38 AM)
So synthsin75, if we observe a source rotating around a galactic center and that source continues to rotate and emit unblocked until the beam reaches the observer, is there a continuous straight light beam between the source now and the observer now? or is the continuous light beam between them curved? (regardless of whether the source is moving away from or towards the observer).
You are making the mistake of talking about a "beam" of light, which is composed of enumerable photons, where I'm talking about the "path" of a photon. These are two very different things.
Seems someone has been playing numerology.
Seems someone has been playing numerology.
I have shown that the classic Lorentz Transformation proofs of time dilation is invalid based on the fact that they require a second motion vector for the light other than their progress at c.
You've shown no such thing. You've only done some wild arm waving without any substantiation.
Yes, it is fairly obvious that you don't understand relativity and that you would be forced to rely solely on Newton. Relativity didn't "establish" the result of these experiments, it PREDICTED the results. IOW, the empirical reality is what supports this theory, it doesn't prove itself. That you would even think so is humorous.
And of course Pound-Rebka relied on relativity, as it was a direct test of the validity of that theory. Again, empirical reality determining the validity of theory.
You also seem to be completely unaware that the Lorentz transformations had been around since 1887, and Einstein only re-derived them from the postulates of special relativity alone. These equations were known to work even when it was still thought that an ether existed. So even if you could prove an ether, you wouldn't do away with the Lorentz transforms.
Yes, it is fairly obvious that you don't understand relativity and that you would be forced to rely solely on Newton. Relativity didn't "establish" the result of these experiments, it PREDICTED the results. IOW, the empirical reality is what supports this theory, it doesn't prove itself. That you would even think so is humorous.
And of course Pound-Rebka relied on relativity, as it was a direct test of the validity of that theory. Again, empirical reality determining the validity of theory.
You also seem to be completely unaware that the Lorentz transformations had been around since 1887, and Einstein only re-derived them from the postulates of special relativity alone. These equations were known to work even when it was still thought that an ether existed. So even if you could prove an ether, you wouldn't do away with the Lorentz transforms.
I don’t have answers for everything but the problem I have demonstrated deserves serious thought and consideration [usually by others].
This is a typical crankism.
You are making the mistake of talking about a "beam" of light, which is composed of enumerable photons, where I'm talking about the "path" of a photon. These are two very different things.
QUOTE
It's just seems strange that the latest calculation for the birth of our solar system multiplied by Pi is very close to the time back to the big bang.
Seems someone has been playing numerology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's just seems strange that the latest calculation for the birth of our solar system multiplied by Pi is very close to the time back to the big bang. |
Seems someone has been playing numerology.
I have shown that the classic Lorentz Transformation proofs of time dilation is invalid based on the fact that they require a second motion vector for the light other than their progress at c.
You've shown no such thing. You've only done some wild arm waving without any substantiation.
QUOTE
The clocks on planes experiments used the math of both Special and general Relativity to establish what they expected to find. So did Pound and Rebka for that matter. That seems to violate the taboo of physics that says you can’t use the math of a theory to prove the theory. I don’t doubt the blue shift of Pound Rebka or that the atomic clocks were speeded up. I wonder if anyone has investigated either of them using Newton’s Laws of gravity, Cartesian co-ordinates and Euclidian geometry.
Yes, it is fairly obvious that you don't understand relativity and that you would be forced to rely solely on Newton. Relativity didn't "establish" the result of these experiments, it PREDICTED the results. IOW, the empirical reality is what supports this theory, it doesn't prove itself. That you would even think so is humorous.
And of course Pound-Rebka relied on relativity, as it was a direct test of the validity of that theory. Again, empirical reality determining the validity of theory.
You also seem to be completely unaware that the Lorentz transformations had been around since 1887, and Einstein only re-derived them from the postulates of special relativity alone. These equations were known to work even when it was still thought that an ether existed. So even if you could prove an ether, you wouldn't do away with the Lorentz transforms.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The clocks on planes experiments used the math of both Special and general Relativity to establish what they expected to find. So did Pound and Rebka for that matter. That seems to violate the taboo of physics that says you can’t use the math of a theory to prove the theory. I don’t doubt the blue shift of Pound Rebka or that the atomic clocks were speeded up. I wonder if anyone has investigated either of them using Newton’s Laws of gravity, Cartesian co-ordinates and Euclidian geometry. |
Yes, it is fairly obvious that you don't understand relativity and that you would be forced to rely solely on Newton. Relativity didn't "establish" the result of these experiments, it PREDICTED the results. IOW, the empirical reality is what supports this theory, it doesn't prove itself. That you would even think so is humorous.
And of course Pound-Rebka relied on relativity, as it was a direct test of the validity of that theory. Again, empirical reality determining the validity of theory.
You also seem to be completely unaware that the Lorentz transformations had been around since 1887, and Einstein only re-derived them from the postulates of special relativity alone. These equations were known to work even when it was still thought that an ether existed. So even if you could prove an ether, you wouldn't do away with the Lorentz transforms.
I don’t have answers for everything but the problem I have demonstrated deserves serious thought and consideration [usually by others].
This is a typical crankism.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 29 2012, 12:58 AM)
You are making the mistake of talking about a "beam" of light, which is composed of enumerable photons, where I'm talking about the "path" of a photon. These are two very different things.
Well synthsin75, In case you have not noticed, I have been talking about the physical path that a stream of continuous photons takes going from a rotating source to an observer. On the departure end the beam is as wide as the emitting source and at the receiving end it is individual photons being captured.
So please tell me what you would expect to see if you were observing a solar system like our own, that had rotated around its galactic center 20 times during the time it took for the light to travel to you and your optical depth of field was 5% of this distance?
Please make considered responses and engage in a scientific dialogue, do not cast aspersions as you just demean the entire scientific community.
I just noticed your signature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
Well synthsin75, In case you have not noticed, I have been talking about the physical path that a stream of continuous photons takes going from a rotating source to an observer. On the departure end the beam is as wide as the emitting source and at the receiving end it is individual photons being captured.
So please tell me what you would expect to see if you were observing a solar system like our own, that had rotated around its galactic center 20 times during the time it took for the light to travel to you and your optical depth of field was 5% of this distance?
Please make considered responses and engage in a scientific dialogue, do not cast aspersions as you just demean the entire scientific community.
I just noticed your signature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
QUOTE
The process of abstract axiomatization as exemplified by Hilbert's axioms reduces geometry to theorem proving or predicate logic. In contrast, the Greeks used construction postulates, and emphasized problem solving.[56] For the Greeks, constructions are more primitive than existence propositions, and can be used to prove existence propositions, but not vice versa. To describe problem solving adequately requires a richer system of logical concepts.[56] The contrast in approach may be summarized:[57]
Axiomatic proof: Proofs are deductive derivations of propositions from primitive premises that are ‘true’ in some sense. The aim is to justify the proposition.
Analytic proof: Proofs are non-deductive derivations of hypothesis from problems. The aim is to find hypotheses capable of giving a solution to the problem.
Axiomatic proof: Proofs are deductive derivations of propositions from primitive premises that are ‘true’ in some sense. The aim is to justify the proposition.
Analytic proof: Proofs are non-deductive derivations of hypothesis from problems. The aim is to find hypotheses capable of giving a solution to the problem.
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 28 2012, 08:15 PM)
Well synthsin75, In case you have not noticed, I have been talking about the physical path that a stream of continuous photons takes going from a rotating source to an observer.
That's like mapping out a path of falling rocks that are simply dropped from the edges of a round platform. Each rock only falls straight down, so the supposed "curved path" of the collection is illusory. No such physical path actually exists.
You seem to be talking solely about optical effects, not physical effects.
That's like mapping out a path of falling rocks that are simply dropped from the edges of a round platform. Each rock only falls straight down, so the supposed "curved path" of the collection is illusory. No such physical path actually exists.
QUOTE
So please tell me what you would expect to see if you were observing a solar system like our own, that had rotated around its galactic center 20 times during the time it took for the light to travel to you and your optical depth of field was 5% of this distance?
You seem to be talking solely about optical effects, not physical effects.
Synthsin
Optical effects vs physical effects.
I see no fundamental differences between those two.
Optical effects vs physical effects.
I see no fundamental differences between those two.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 29 2012, 03:27 PM)
That's like mapping out a path of falling rocks that are simply dropped from the edges of a round platform. Each rock only falls straight down, so the supposed "curved path" of the collection is illusory. No such physical path actually exists.
You seem to be talking solely about optical effects, not physical effects.
That's obviously a spurious and illusory statement synthsin75.
If you were directly under the center of the round platform you would not observe any of those rocks/photons coming straight at you because they would fall in a circle around you. If the platform was rotating, if the rocks all fell from the same point on the platform, and if the rocks travelled (were projected at a consistent speed) in a straight line from their departure point to your head, the line going from your head through each of the individual falling rocks to their last projection point would be a spiral curve in a euclidian space. Hopefully you would realise what was going to happen and moved away before you were knocked senseless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
Is there is anybody on this site who wants to discuss the import of these non euclidian misconceptions of the relative motion of light in any practical analytical way?
You seem to be talking solely about optical effects, not physical effects.
That's obviously a spurious and illusory statement synthsin75.
If you were directly under the center of the round platform you would not observe any of those rocks/photons coming straight at you because they would fall in a circle around you. If the platform was rotating, if the rocks all fell from the same point on the platform, and if the rocks travelled (were projected at a consistent speed) in a straight line from their departure point to your head, the line going from your head through each of the individual falling rocks to their last projection point would be a spiral curve in a euclidian space. Hopefully you would realise what was going to happen and moved away before you were knocked senseless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
QUOTE
Axiomatic formulations
Geometry is the science of correct reasoning on incorrect figures.
—George Polyá, How to Solve It, p. 208
Euclid's axioms: In his dissertation to Trinity College, Cambridge, Bertrand Russell summarized the changing role of Euclid's geometry in the minds of philosophers up to that time.[48] It was a conflict between certain knowledge, independent of experiment, and empiricism, requiring experimental input. This issue became clear as it was discovered that the parallel postulate was not necessarily valid and its applicability was an empirical matter, deciding whether the applicable geometry was Euclidean or non-Euclidean.
Geometry is the science of correct reasoning on incorrect figures.
—George Polyá, How to Solve It, p. 208
Euclid's axioms: In his dissertation to Trinity College, Cambridge, Bertrand Russell summarized the changing role of Euclid's geometry in the minds of philosophers up to that time.[48] It was a conflict between certain knowledge, independent of experiment, and empiricism, requiring experimental input. This issue became clear as it was discovered that the parallel postulate was not necessarily valid and its applicability was an empirical matter, deciding whether the applicable geometry was Euclidean or non-Euclidean.
Is there is anybody on this site who wants to discuss the import of these non euclidian misconceptions of the relative motion of light in any practical analytical way?
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 29 2012, 11:22 PM)
That's obviously a spurious and illusory statement synthsin75.
If you were directly under the center of the round platform you would not observe any of those rocks/photons coming straight at you because they would fall in a circle around you. If the platform was rotating, if the rocks all fell from the same point on the platform, and if the rocks travelled (were projected at a consistent speed) in a straight line from their departure point to your head, the line going from your head through each of the individual falling rocks to their last projection point would be a spiral curve in a euclidian space. Hopefully you would realise what was going to happen and moved away before you were knocked senseless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
Is there is anybody on this site who wants to discuss the import of these non euclidian misconceptions of the relative motion of light in any practical analytical way?
The relative motion of light. Get a clue.
If you were directly under the center of the round platform you would not observe any of those rocks/photons coming straight at you because they would fall in a circle around you. If the platform was rotating, if the rocks all fell from the same point on the platform, and if the rocks travelled (were projected at a consistent speed) in a straight line from their departure point to your head, the line going from your head through each of the individual falling rocks to their last projection point would be a spiral curve in a euclidian space. Hopefully you would realise what was going to happen and moved away before you were knocked senseless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
Is there is anybody on this site who wants to discuss the import of these non euclidian misconceptions of the relative motion of light in any practical analytical way?
The relative motion of light. Get a clue.
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 29 2012, 05:22 PM)
That's obviously a spurious and illusory statement synthsin75.
If you were directly under the center of the round platform you would not observe any of those rocks/photons coming straight at you because they would fall in a circle around you.
Complete blathering nonsense. "Falling in a circle" is in no way equivalent to traveling a curved path. Extrapolating a "path" from multiple objects is physically meaningless in this case.
And with that you definitely file yourself among the cranks. Probably no use in entertaining your nonsense any further, as you're not likely to learn. Have fun playing science.
If you were directly under the center of the round platform you would not observe any of those rocks/photons coming straight at you because they would fall in a circle around you.
Complete blathering nonsense. "Falling in a circle" is in no way equivalent to traveling a curved path. Extrapolating a "path" from multiple objects is physically meaningless in this case.
QUOTE
Is there is anybody on this site who wants to discuss the import of these non euclidian misconceptions of the relative motion of light in any practical analytical way?
And with that you definitely file yourself among the cranks. Probably no use in entertaining your nonsense any further, as you're not likely to learn. Have fun playing science.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 30 2012, 11:13 AM)
The relative motion of light. Get a clue.
Hi Brucep,
That reminds me that one distinction between relative motions of light was made very recently with regards to dark matter and observations of pulsar pairs.
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-n...for-dark-matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
The second link is the rebuttal paper and the following is a quote from the abstract.
So if you use an axis of rotation to measure the velocity of non central band rotating sources from observations for mass calculations you get dark matter but if you use a consistent center of rotation for all sources being observed you get no dark matter.
Is this one of those clues you refer to?
Hi Brucep,
That reminds me that one distinction between relative motions of light was made very recently with regards to dark matter and observations of pulsar pairs.
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-n...for-dark-matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
The second link is the rebuttal paper and the following is a quote from the abstract.
QUOTE
We show that this result is incorrect and that it arises from the assumption that the mean azimuthal velocity of the stellar tracers is independent of Galactocentric radius at all heights.
So if you use an axis of rotation to measure the velocity of non central band rotating sources from observations for mass calculations you get dark matter but if you use a consistent center of rotation for all sources being observed you get no dark matter.
Is this one of those clues you refer to?
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 30 2012, 02:30 AM)
Hi Brucep,
That reminds me that one distinction between relative motions of light was made very recently with regards to dark matter and observations of pulsar pairs.
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-n...for-dark-matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
The second link is the rebuttal paper and the following is a quote from the abstract.
So if you use an axis of rotation to measure the velocity of non central band rotating sources from observations for mass calculations you get dark matter but if you use a consistent center of rotation for all sources being observed you get no dark matter.
Is this one of those clues you refer to?
No, I meant for you to get a clue. IE you're clueless.
That reminds me that one distinction between relative motions of light was made very recently with regards to dark matter and observations of pulsar pairs.
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-n...for-dark-matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
The second link is the rebuttal paper and the following is a quote from the abstract.
So if you use an axis of rotation to measure the velocity of non central band rotating sources from observations for mass calculations you get dark matter but if you use a consistent center of rotation for all sources being observed you get no dark matter.
Is this one of those clues you refer to?
No, I meant for you to get a clue. IE you're clueless.
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 29 2012, 08:30 PM)
Hi Brucep,
That reminds me that one distinction between relative motions of light was made very recently with regards to dark matter and observations of pulsar pairs.
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-n...for-dark-matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
The second link is the rebuttal paper and the following is a quote from the abstract.
What on earth do either of those have to do with light?! Yep, still waiting for you to demonstrate having a clue.
That reminds me that one distinction between relative motions of light was made very recently with regards to dark matter and observations of pulsar pairs.
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-n...for-dark-matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
The second link is the rebuttal paper and the following is a quote from the abstract.
What on earth do either of those have to do with light?! Yep, still waiting for you to demonstrate having a clue.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 30 2012, 12:11 PM)
Complete blathering nonsense. "Falling in a circle" is in no way equivalent to traveling a curved path. Extrapolating a "path" from multiple objects is physically meaningless in this case.
You can't be serious synthsin75,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
You can't be serious synthsin75,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
QUOTE
Albert Einstein suggested that radiation existed in spatially localized packets which he called "quanta of light" ("Lightquanta").[7]
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 30 2012, 12:44 PM)
What on earth do either of those have to do with light?! Yep, still waiting for you to demonstrate having a clue.
Read the rebuttal paper synthsin75, you will find that optical astronomical observations involve light.
Read the rebuttal paper synthsin75, you will find that optical astronomical observations involve light.
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 30 2012, 02:46 AM)
You can't be serious synthsin75,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
Quit citing stuff that has no relevance to your conversation. The path and velocity of light is described by GR. The local coordinate speed of light [tangent to every point on the spacetime manifold] which is an invariant [regardless of the relative motion between the emitter and receiver] and the remote coordinate speed of light which can be any value < 1. You can accurately described the path of light using either the local or remote coordinates. Nothing you can obfuscate or contrive will change that for the GPS or any other experiment which includes the speed of light as an experimental component. If you think you can you should submit your experiment for peer review. Not sure if the Muppet's will bother with such nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
Quit citing stuff that has no relevance to your conversation. The path and velocity of light is described by GR. The local coordinate speed of light [tangent to every point on the spacetime manifold] which is an invariant [regardless of the relative motion between the emitter and receiver] and the remote coordinate speed of light which can be any value < 1. You can accurately described the path of light using either the local or remote coordinates. Nothing you can obfuscate or contrive will change that for the GPS or any other experiment which includes the speed of light as an experimental component. If you think you can you should submit your experiment for peer review. Not sure if the Muppet's will bother with such nonsense.
QUOTE (LaurieAG+Jul 30 2012, 02:53 AM)
Read the rebuttal paper synthsin75, you will find that optical astronomical observations involve light.
So what?
So what?
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 30 2012, 12:42 PM)
No, I meant for you to get a clue. IE you're clueless.
I'm still not sure what your clue is but I agree that Internet Explorer is not the best. I'm intrigued, could your clue be about the structure of the different mathematical constructs used in minkowski/euclidian space?
You will find the following in chapter 4. http://www.math.wisc...isler/calc.html
This quote and figure was in relation to a cyclic function with a changing variable and a sub part with infinite limits similar to a divergent integral. So divergent indefinite integrals can equal 0 if their infinite limits are equal and they are part of a higher level cycle (field) but convergent integrals are only improper and equal to 0 by themselves when they have finite limits (euclidian).
The interesting bit is that the cyclic field constructs that have limits from - infinity to + infinity and represent one complete cycle of a higher level process count, that can only equal 1, appear to have the same properties as defined limit improper integrals. This type of cyclic construct can be used to represent an untranslated time based continuum and in effect change a linear limit from 0 to infinity into a cyclic limit from 0 to a very large number.
If the underlying mathematical constructs are not your clue then maybe the relative differences between optical and x-ray lenses may shine some light on the relative motion of light?
I have also wondered why we get discrepancies in the galaxy counts between astronomical observations made through deep field optical (100%) and x-ray telescopes (only around 20-25%) for the exact same fields. If we consider that (1) the only objects that appear with any clarity in deep field optical images are those that were still emitting light at the beginning of the optical depth of field (for the distance of the exposure period not the depth of field), all other sources of photons could not be emitting past this point or they would appear clearly before image enhancement. And (2) The glancing incident lensing used in x-ray astronomy covers 60-65% max of the same surface area of an optical lens and can only collect rays that go directly into the relatively narrow slits that comprise its structure. What role does the physical structure of the glancing incident lens play in the missing galaxies problem? Have you ever seen an image of just half a galaxy in the complete field of view of an optical astronomical observation?
Is the extra galaxy 'formation' seen in optical imaging due to the inability of x-ray lenses to capture the photons emitted from a rotating source within the images exposure period when its galactic center and diameter of rotation are not fully within the slits? Or are they due to the display of light from sources that expired outside of the distance of the exposure period at the beginning of the depth of field in the optical observation?
If none of these are the clue you refer to then the only thing remaining is optical feedback loops.
I'm still not sure what your clue is but I agree that Internet Explorer is not the best. I'm intrigued, could your clue be about the structure of the different mathematical constructs used in minkowski/euclidian space?
You will find the following in chapter 4. http://www.math.wisc...isler/calc.html
QUOTE
Figure 4.4.7
We do not know how to find the indefinite integrals in this example. Nevertheless the answer is 0 because on changing variables both limits of integration become the same.
We do not know how to find the indefinite integrals in this example. Nevertheless the answer is 0 because on changing variables both limits of integration become the same.
This quote and figure was in relation to a cyclic function with a changing variable and a sub part with infinite limits similar to a divergent integral. So divergent indefinite integrals can equal 0 if their infinite limits are equal and they are part of a higher level cycle (field) but convergent integrals are only improper and equal to 0 by themselves when they have finite limits (euclidian).
The interesting bit is that the cyclic field constructs that have limits from - infinity to + infinity and represent one complete cycle of a higher level process count, that can only equal 1, appear to have the same properties as defined limit improper integrals. This type of cyclic construct can be used to represent an untranslated time based continuum and in effect change a linear limit from 0 to infinity into a cyclic limit from 0 to a very large number.
If the underlying mathematical constructs are not your clue then maybe the relative differences between optical and x-ray lenses may shine some light on the relative motion of light?
I have also wondered why we get discrepancies in the galaxy counts between astronomical observations made through deep field optical (100%) and x-ray telescopes (only around 20-25%) for the exact same fields. If we consider that (1) the only objects that appear with any clarity in deep field optical images are those that were still emitting light at the beginning of the optical depth of field (for the distance of the exposure period not the depth of field), all other sources of photons could not be emitting past this point or they would appear clearly before image enhancement. And (2) The glancing incident lensing used in x-ray astronomy covers 60-65% max of the same surface area of an optical lens and can only collect rays that go directly into the relatively narrow slits that comprise its structure. What role does the physical structure of the glancing incident lens play in the missing galaxies problem? Have you ever seen an image of just half a galaxy in the complete field of view of an optical astronomical observation?
Is the extra galaxy 'formation' seen in optical imaging due to the inability of x-ray lenses to capture the photons emitted from a rotating source within the images exposure period when its galactic center and diameter of rotation are not fully within the slits? Or are they due to the display of light from sources that expired outside of the distance of the exposure period at the beginning of the depth of field in the optical observation?
If none of these are the clue you refer to then the only thing remaining is optical feedback loops.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 30 2012, 02:03 PM)
So what?
Optical feedback loops bring some good perspectives on the representation of the relative motion of light in its untranslated mathematical form i.e. non euclidian.
Approximately 14 years ago I set up a 800x600 pixel optical feedback loop between a camera on a 3 way tripod base and a PC and captured a series of screens of output. There are only 4 setup variables for each image and they are the distance between the camera and the view horizon (image screen capture) and the x, y and z angles of the camera, everything else was inherrent to the system as set up.
I found I could fine tune/focus the loop by twisting the camera to produced an image I call the perfect orb. This 3D looking orb was the sum result of skewing the outside angle of the viewing frame from each preceding frame into the center of the loop. If I was careful I could induce a shadow into the loop with my finger and turn that spinning orb into a perfect einstein ring. The strange thing was that whenever I attempted to capture the einstein ring before it actually formed it would never form because it would be destabilised by the 'select file name' popup box. Even more interesting was that this inside out state was stable if not interrupted and only reverted back to its perfect orb state when the cylindrical light beam was interrupted. I call this experiment the shadow trap for obvious reasons.
There wasn't any smoke used in any of my experiments with the optical feedback loop but I did get some good screen captures by introducing mirrors into the setup. Interesting images abound with mirrors but one of the best is identical to a good 2D representation of a Riemann sphere if you use just one mirror and mask off anything outside of the sphere itself in the image. All of the screen prints collected look exactly like their respective screens looked like from any viewpoint away from the screen and all (apart from the einstein ring) were repeatable by just resetting the 4 variables and turning the equipment on.
Please note that the einstein ring phenomena only exists because the perfect orb state and its sister halo (or black hole) state are the products of the cumulative results of spun/skewed past frames that result in a stable standing wave at the view horizon (screen) which is then repeatedly projected back to the observer.
This phenomena, while interesting, only appears as a result of the induced spin and the lag in the electronic components, particularly the CCD capture, and the screen frequency.
Brucep, now that we have come around full circle, how is this electronic lag component treated in local GPS calculations?
In other words, do the local GPS calculations take this systemic lag into consideration as the distances get larger or is it a universal calculation (that ignores its own structural deficiencies in scale)?
Optical feedback loops bring some good perspectives on the representation of the relative motion of light in its untranslated mathematical form i.e. non euclidian.
Approximately 14 years ago I set up a 800x600 pixel optical feedback loop between a camera on a 3 way tripod base and a PC and captured a series of screens of output. There are only 4 setup variables for each image and they are the distance between the camera and the view horizon (image screen capture) and the x, y and z angles of the camera, everything else was inherrent to the system as set up.
I found I could fine tune/focus the loop by twisting the camera to produced an image I call the perfect orb. This 3D looking orb was the sum result of skewing the outside angle of the viewing frame from each preceding frame into the center of the loop. If I was careful I could induce a shadow into the loop with my finger and turn that spinning orb into a perfect einstein ring. The strange thing was that whenever I attempted to capture the einstein ring before it actually formed it would never form because it would be destabilised by the 'select file name' popup box. Even more interesting was that this inside out state was stable if not interrupted and only reverted back to its perfect orb state when the cylindrical light beam was interrupted. I call this experiment the shadow trap for obvious reasons.
There wasn't any smoke used in any of my experiments with the optical feedback loop but I did get some good screen captures by introducing mirrors into the setup. Interesting images abound with mirrors but one of the best is identical to a good 2D representation of a Riemann sphere if you use just one mirror and mask off anything outside of the sphere itself in the image. All of the screen prints collected look exactly like their respective screens looked like from any viewpoint away from the screen and all (apart from the einstein ring) were repeatable by just resetting the 4 variables and turning the equipment on.
Please note that the einstein ring phenomena only exists because the perfect orb state and its sister halo (or black hole) state are the products of the cumulative results of spun/skewed past frames that result in a stable standing wave at the view horizon (screen) which is then repeatedly projected back to the observer.
This phenomena, while interesting, only appears as a result of the induced spin and the lag in the electronic components, particularly the CCD capture, and the screen frequency.
Brucep, now that we have come around full circle, how is this electronic lag component treated in local GPS calculations?
In other words, do the local GPS calculations take this systemic lag into consideration as the distances get larger or is it a universal calculation (that ignores its own structural deficiencies in scale)?
Nothing but non sequitur.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 31 2012, 10:14 AM)
Nothing but non sequitur.
Hi synthsin75,
Lets let Mr Dirac have the last word.
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present, and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Hi synthsin75,
Lets let Mr Dirac have the last word.
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present, and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Playing with your camera and computer screen are just that, playing. Nothing more.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.