Masanov

Stationary means another spaceship with observer of different times mentioned. If you observe "non-simultenuity" it is simple: you see hits against the wall sequentially. But if you observe only one of the times, you have to hold the head in a certain direction? Does the time you observe changes processes: for example, water boils more quickly? If you hold you head... What will happen with water, if suddenly the pulse you observe disappear? It will not "know" with what time to boil?

Animation shows your experiment vice versa in S and S', innovation. The light pulse S was shot in frames S and along the alpha distance it is slower than the light pulse S' shot in frames S'. The main thing in the animation is to notice that the speed of the light pulse S' is bigger and is a combination of vectors C and V. In the sphere S' the light pulse S' has its time t, in the sphere S the light pulse S has its time t. So, we have the common time t. So the light pulse S' along alpha-distance has different from C speed, and the difference is famous V1-v2/c2.[/b] Einstein refers this difference to time t, not speed C so that in direction alpha we have time [time t * V1-v2/c2]. Any other light pulse of the sphere S' has different direction and different relative speed and accordingly different time from the point od view of S in its direction. These directional times [we discussed them as t1,t2,t3] cannot influence a simple cooking process in the sphere S, cannot slowing it down or speed it up. The spheres S and S' as we said have common time t, which cannot be substituted by the directional times. So, from the point of view of the observer S he can use his time t to know the speed of the light pulse S' (see animation) along the alpha distance, which is [C* time t * V1-v2/c2]. Expression according to the theory of relativity should go to time t, but since the observer S measures everything by his time t, the expression V1-v2/c2 goes to C and as animation shows the light pulse is really much faster than C but strictly to this expression V1-v2/c2. Animation (3): http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(3).htm. 3)Animation(4) http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(4).htm. shows different angles of light direction in the frames S'. These angles change relative alpha-distances, from which relative times [directional times] can be dirived. These angles cannot cause a certain time change in the sphere S? Relative times are non-obligatory times! They can be millions and millions and one cannot use them to measure processes, for example in cooking, because they are different from the time t in S and S'! Relative speeds as vector C + vector V do not contradict the theory of relativity and its postulates, as an example see the relative speed in "V2/C2" of the famous V1-v2/c2 expression. If relative speeds contradicted postulates, they would not be widely used in calculations? Relative time formula is "time t * relativespeed/absolutespeed" More over, the alpha-distance passed by the light pulse S' (as was said) is C * alpha-factor V1-v2/c2 * time t. So, the observer S having time t is not obliged to combine alpha-factor with time t: he combines alpha-factor with C, seeing the light pulse S' faster than C. ***alpha-factor: relative speed/absolute speed, or [vector C+ vector V/C]. If you change the angle of the light beam in the sphere S', do processes slow down or speed up in the sphere S? (See animation) Pls think carefully before you give any answer!!!! NEW HERE IS POSSIBILITY TO HAVE TIME T IN S AND S'. So, if the observer S sees the light pulse S' along alpha-distance he uses his time T and alpha-factor goes to C.

Repeat pls what do you mean by one event occur in different times? And what is nonsence. If you try to "help", then be specific and do not mix my arguments. We discuss Janus calculations: paths ct1. ct2. ct3, seen from the frames S. Janus said that we can have simultaneously in one spaceship different times: in a cockpit t1, in a restroom t2, in the dining room t3. You also agreed that paths ct1, ct2, ct3 are different and have different times. So, you have to admit that nonsence t1, t2, t3 is the requirements of the theory of relativity. +when you say everybody is trying to help me is the same... "think". Now I am trying to help you to understand all the nonsence you try to help me understand. If in the dining room you observe million directions, you observe million times. You ask me, whether it is a nonsence? Yes, it is the nonsense, but we live in a relativity world:

I see, what you mean. Did you notice, that the light speed of the pulse S' is relative to the sphere S?

Any comments to animation? In the animation (3) the light pulse of S appeared too quick, but generally, I think, it's clear. Swansont, you repeated many times, that according to SR... You agreed with three times, for me this is important and enouph. I understood at once, that three times in a spaceship for you is not a nonsence: a cockpit can have 9:00 AM, a restroom can have 13:00 AM, a dining room 18:00 AM, as for you this is ok. Yesterday is afore, tomorrow is astern. I understand that you want to beat records by short comments and be Almighty 3000 posts, playing games and giving short comments. Don't butt in between real discussions. If you show in, give food for minds, prove. Or else I will not take you seriously.

Janus Post: 88 Isn't your sphere S a spaceship? Nevertheless in the sphere S you can also have time t, equal to time t in sphere S':imagine they both have this experiment, post 88 But can't you be more attentive? Or should I follow each my message with pictures or animations? To be more specific, OK, instead of the word SPACESHIP in my post 86 use the phrase "immovable sphere S in the experiment with three light pulses, proposed by Janus, see posts 83, 84 + 68(with one light pulse)+Animation 89. In this sphere, shown in the post 83 by Janus (the sphere immovable in the animation, not this shown in logo), we could see three times t1, t2, t3, which is impossibility, that is, refutation of the theory of relativity: Defferent distances divided by C give different times, which means nonsence.

Animation of the light pulse between the parallel mirrors: Along the perpendicular line, the light pulse flies with the relative speed, along skewed line it flies with the absolute speed. Along perpendicular line the light pulse flies askew, by its side. http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(2).htm In Janus's calculations we saw two vectors C and V added as Y*sin alpha and Y*cosalpha, and finally Janus divided the resulting distance by C, receiving time t1. And the same was the case with all three paths in our new experiment with three light pulses ct1, ct2, ct3. So, to check times in directions ct1, ct2, ct3 we have to divide these distances by [C and V], not just by C, and the resulting times should be equal. You missed factor-V! You can argue and say, that only one observer can see relative speed [C + V], another sees C. Then I would ask, which observer saw the relative speeds [C + V], observer S or S'? The observer S could also have the same experiment as the observer S' and could also have common time t for all his pulses: in this case S has time t and S' has times t1,t2,t3. So the sphere S can have times t and t1,t2,t3, and the sphere S' can too. In your calculations distance ct1 was presented as (vector V + vector C) time t. The time t1 was presented as [(vector V + vector C) time t / C], so the formula to derive is: (vector V + vector C) time t = C time t1, which is relativity formula. For me this formula only means, that the observer S shooting the pulse in direction ct1 will wait time t1 until ct1 is passed by his pulse, while he would wait only time t, watching the other pulse [shot in S'] moving with speed (vector V + vector C) along the same path ct1. To prove that the pulse S' is much quicker than the pulse S along the same distance ct1 see the animation: http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(3).htm. This experiment being done officially, it will prove the relativity of light speed.

Now it's Ok, you said times t1,t2,t3 difference is misapplication of postulates [06-27-2005, 09:14 PM]. Now, pls develop, how we could simultenously have three different times in a spaceship? . Decipher pls: t1 - we can see it turning the head to the direction ct1; t2 - we can have it turning the head to the direction ct2; t3 - we can have it turning the head to the direction ct3. So, time is where in our heads? On our watches? Then, if there would not be light return, what time T will you have? And ridiculous exp.: how twins should behave to dilate time t3, to hold the head to direction ct3 20-100 years?

Now in your experiment we have 3 pulses with three different times in the sphere S, while in the sphere S' they have common time. You inserted gamma-factor and proved common time T [see your calculations dated 07-12-2005, 12:40 AM] for all these 3 pulses. But! Time T is combination of times to the reflector and from the reflector. We cannot use T instead of t3, t2, t1, which are different and are parts of T. So, returning back to our discussions, How can we use this time T instead of t1,t2,t3, when T is a combination of times to and from the reflector? Times t1,t2,t3 being only the part of T! Newtonian appologists can point these times t1,t2,t3 and ask, how on Earth these different times can coexist in one spaceship for one observer in the spaceship, uh? They will say: "Einstein simply changed relative speeds with times. Relative speeds can coexist in one spaceship, but not relative times." Newtonian apologists can also following your calculations derive common speed for all the pulses. The speed is the distance-factor, not time-factor, so gamma-factor [having speeds] is to be applied rather with Newton's speed, than with Einstein's time, and light speed gamma-contraction is more likely, than time gamma-contraction. But what they will do with this common speed, [the same is true with common T]. Difference in times t1,t2,t3 is the meaning of my thread and is not a special theory of mine, as was mentioned by someone. Your derivation of the common time T can be explained by the newtonians as the try to escape from refutation of the theory of relativity. Gamma-contraction cannot help: times t1,t2,t3 will remain defferent. Special remarks: in your experiment vectors of the speed C in spheres S and S' are directed differently; it cannot be so, one of the vectors should be relative, should be a combination of two vectors V and C, the newtonians could also point to that fact as a mistake: when you see the light pulse in the sphere S, shot in the sphere S', you see the different side of this pulse ["different side of the moon"]. There is this side movement of the light pulse along distance ct1... Plus in your animation this side movement is not shown + and it is plus to you, because you showed relative speeds of light pulses for some absolute time.

You agree that three pulses in my 7.png have three different times?Really? T90 = T sin alpha1, tbeta2= T sin alpha2/sinbeta2, tbeta3=T sinalpha3/sinbeta3???

Your message 9:25 PM is misleading and confusing, maybe because of my inattentiveness, pls delete it.

Yes, I was inattentive. Sorry. But it is also all your fault and inattentiveness. I many times asked people to discuss the picture http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/7 I was thinking you have started discussing it. In this my picture light (3 pulses) was shot NOT in the moving sphere S', but vice versa in S. Sphere S' is catching up with these three light pulses. Relative distances seen [by the moving observer] BETA1, BETA2, BETA3 should be divided by C to receive times, different from each other. CONCLUSION of the picture is: we have three times in one spaceship. Your discussion is different, but nevertheless, sorry: your distances ct1 and ct2 are different, your distances ct1' and ct2' are the same. From Newton views: you cheat with C in ct1, because there should be relative speed instead of absolute, meaning vector C + vector V... Plus you cheat with gamma-factor... Nevertheless, what I have scooped, that you apply to relative distances ct1 and ct2 absolute speed C. So, pls understand my "7.png", divide relative BETA-distances by C and receive 3 times. Following my 7.png, I misunderstood you. As I followed your and Swansont thoughts, you are trying to say that ALPHA distances can have gamma-factor and beta-distances not. This means that you do not "allow" me to divide beta distances by C and receive their times, so we should use only alpha times + only gamma-factor. As for your experiment, pls be specific and slow. Try to imagine in the sphere S' three light pulses, do not return them back. Compare distances ct1, ct2 and ct3, compare distances ct1', ct2' and ct3'. In sphere S' times t1', t2', t3 are equal, in the sphere S times are different. So in one sphere three different times. This is the problem, not that one time, you have derived, having inserted gamma-factor.

Ct1 and Ct2 and Y belong to inside observer, outside observer cannot know ALPHA angle, only BETA angle. ALPHA times are the same. And the speed gamma*Y*cos Alpha proves that the distance is not simply Y, it should be [gamma*Y]. And in Y*sin ALPHA it should be then [gamma*Y]sin ALPHA. Then Ct1 and Ct2 are not relative distances for outside observer, between parallel mirrors we have relative distances to which postulates were applied. Here we don't have relative distances. E.G. relative distance [gamma Y sin Alpha] is shown without gamma.

Contraction is a squeeze to both observers. Show me, how the outside observer is going to measure contraction, by looking to reference books? If contraction occurs it should be real, not surreal. How can a squeeze be not a squeeze? Actual experiment is when we have actual squeeze, real to all observers inside and outside the spaceship, or else no experiments can be made. Onserver outside the spaceship cannot see ALPHA angle. Distance Y is seen by inside observer at ALPHA angle, ct1 and ct2 are also seen at ALPHA by inside observer. As these distances the same, C the same, and time should be the same. If you introduce another observer, first show relative angle.

In your image you did not mention the reflector and misapplied direction of vector in vt2: the arrow should point to the left, not to the right. Yellow distance is misleading distance, nobody sees along this path anything, and this distance shown at angle BETA, not ALPHA: or else in your calculations BETA angle should be mentioned. Anyway when the light pulse is at the end of the yellow distance, reflector moves together with the sphere S to a position of the sphere S'. So spheres S and S' is the same spaceship! Distances Ct1 and Ct2 and Y are seen together at one common angle ALPHA. To say, that they are different, means fun or mischief. So, if gamma-contraction is assigned to distances ct1 and ct2, then assign it to the distance Y: contraction is a squeeze, and a squeeze is a squeeze from the point of view of anybody... or God. Ha-ha: the same spaceship! Einstein was not good at school, he could allow himself any misapplication of vectors and mundane|vain calculations. [Your picture showed "a spider got entangled in his own web". It is not a shock, Swansont, it's this spider dizziness of exhaustion]. Repetition of the said long ago at the beginning of my discussions: If the light pulse is seen between parallel mirrors on the relative distance at some angle BETA we see its different side, as if we see different side of the moon. According to M.Gardner in "The Theory Of Relativity For The Millions" we catch up with the light pulse and see its another side at angle BETA equal 90 degrees. So if somebody quotes Gardner here in short, we can step by step prove additional BETA times, presented in the table. In the picture is shown that light pulses move along BETA distances by their different sides askewed.

I will think over during a week, but this logic reminds me relative horizontal distance proofs, when after a lot of eqivalent formulas transformations, gamma factor was inserted without proofs. I promise to reread carefully this and say my word about it, though I ask you to be specific and reconsider the same but to all three pulses at once, because my logical experiment with three pulses between parallel mirrors is at stake here. And we should consider absolute distances also. The scheme of my experiment was this scheme: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pulses shot from absolute points____Pulse1_______Pulse2_________Pulse3 ____________________________(considered in _____________________________the theory)_ (not considered)(not considered) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Absolute Distances Covered for the time the spaceship have gone the distance C * cos ALPHA * T________________CT___________CT____________CT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relative distances to one observer moving in a spaceship_CT*sinALPHA__CT*sinALPHA1__CTsinALPHA2 ___________________________________________sin BETA1_____sin BETA2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- !!!!!!! According to Einstein we should apply to absolute and relative distances mentioned postulates, that is we should divide the distances by C. As a result we receive these time equations:___________________T*sinALPHA___T*sinALPHA1___T*sinALPHA2 ________________________________________ ------------___------------ __________________________________________sin BETA1______sin BETA2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your explanation does not differ much from experiment with horizontal parallel mirrors, where relative distances were proven. Gamma equation was inserted there like a bolt from the blue. I cannot agree with you here because the main point in the theory of relativity is relative distances passed by light with the same speed. Distance cT2 in your explainations is not relative, it is not CTsinALPHA/sinBETA. It's the same as Tom said. I do not fight with it. In schools and other books explanation goes at the beginning by presenting gamma factor as sin ALPHA=V 1-v2/c2 in famous logical experiment with parallel mirrors where absolute distance is presented as L and relative distance between parallel mirrors as Lo or LsinALPHA, or Lgamma-factor. And this gamma-factor was derived by dividing relative distance Lo and L by C, receiving time equation. In your explanation, there's no need to apply quite a number of equal formulas for S and then for S', because you have already insterted gamma-factor at the beginning. Your Ct1 and Ct2 are the same... and you return to the equation you insterted from the very beginning. Distance Ct2 is not relative, it's the same Ct1, it's not Ct1*sin AlPHA. (In a week I will tell for sure..) As the result, according to your thinking your do not deny relative distances CTsinALPHA1/sinBETA1 and CTsinALPHA2/sinBETA2. You never knew of them. To see these relative distances, pls visit again:

Moving around the sun is not necessary to pay attention to. Pay attention to 4 ideas: 1) blinks of light around moving source of light (Newton view of absolute space without inertia laws: blinks of light shift to the direction from which the source moves); 2) blinks of light around moving source of light (Newton views on absolute space + inertia laws): according to laws of inertia the speed of light around moving source of light is absolute - the picture in the right hand corner, above; 3) Lorenz and Maxwel thought light spreads in EATHER, a special "substance", that can convey light: EATHER is immovable to absolute space, as in the 1st idea, blinks spread around the point, where the blink was initiated; shifts of light OCCUR, but "substance" do not shift and cannot make shifts of light; 4) Michelson and Morley tried to verify the 3rd idea, but by some reasons did not do that: by their views EATHER does not convey light; their view is the 2nd idea + Eather as substance that can distroy inertia harmony of light around the moving source. "Substance" can and should make shifts of light!!! The 3rd and the 4th ideas are different, Michelson and Morley did not checked ideas 1,2 and 3. To check these ideas, you have to have 2 sources of light as shown in the first message, not 1 source. Without even checking the 3rd idea they made the conclusion: no shifts of light - no "substance". The bending of light DRAWN is possible in 3 different cases accept for the 2nd where light can spread according to inertia laws. The main prediction is to pay attention that the 3rd idea was not checked at all. It means that Aether or Eather was not refuted!!!! Do you differ ideas or not? 3 from 4????

See above, Ether was not disapproved. The third idea, light spreads in the ether around some point in it. For the fourth idea [it is MM experiment] Ether wind works like a river: when you are in a boat and put a hand on the water, the water carries your hand away from the boat. It is not so from the point of the third idea: the hand would not be carried away. To check all the ideas [see 8.png] MM experiment should be remade, with two sources of light [e.g. laser interferometre I saw the proposal of two sources, but I was the first to propose 2 sources of light in this experiment].

Like in school, the light pulse which is closer to the finish line is going to "win", because its speed is not influenced by angle ALPHA. Your reply - ... .

Guys, who looked the picture 8.png. Who has questions? There are 4 ideas fixed by pictures: Newton's views on light relatively to the moving source (blinkung lamp) and Maxwell and Lorenz views on Ether. The main idea is that MM experiment refuted only one case with Ether, the fourth case. The third one remains to be checked. MM experiment do not refute Newton views on space and time. To check Newton, MM experiment should be reconstructed.

Answer simple question, you studied The Young experiment, or not? How many resembling features are there? Let's check your ... before we go further. As MM experiment and the Young experiment do resemble each other, I have to mention it. And this is very helping, as I think.

I see it's all vain to explain. I told you many times and you once agreed that this was not Michelson and Morley experiment. This is the parallel mirrors experiment [the opposite mirror where pulses are going to be stricken back is not drawn]. All three onservers are in the spaceship looking through three viewports. I see that you have quite an imagination. PLS don't mix in here MM experiment. As you argued that there could not be relative speed of light I propose to the analysis OF EVERYBODY my experiment, that can be easily done. http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru\Relativity_Experiment.htm I would like to WARN that this is not Michelson and Morley experiment!!!!!

Short preview before the big fight. http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/8 MM experiment resembles the Young experiment. Change is possible, analysis is analysis, why you pose strict rules? Later on I will make it more clear in pictures, but the Young experiment is a good simple scheme. So, you think that any comparison is pseudo science?

Between parallel mirrors the light pulse moved not at 90 degrees inside the spaceship to the speed of the spaceship? Open pls the textbook and try to The same, if you turn your eyes to the right - you have relative speed B, to the left - relative speed A, turn backwards - relative speed C. This is relativity of speed by Isaac Newton. The same as relativity of time but without haveing different times in one spaceship!

Mart, we will win! [Together with Isaac Newton!]