vuquta

Ummm... Yes, I said time dilation does not accumulate based on the distance of the ground clock to the GPS clock. The distance does not matter. You are talking about an accumulated time dilation based on elapsed time. Looking at t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ t' = tλ - vxλ/c² So under the context, I grant the term tλ, and have been, but not -vxλ/c² which has an x which is the distance of the stationary observer to the moving clock. Full SR requires that the further the GPS satellite from the ground clock along the x-axis, the more out of sync of becomes. This is not supported by GPS and therefore, GPS invalidates full SR. Given t' = tλ - vxλ/c² The clock rate of a GPS is adjusted for tλ. Full SR requires the adjustment to include -vxλ/c². You will not find this adjustment in the paper I posted. Finally, since it does not include this adjustment, and you seem to agree with this that only time dilation applies, then I gave a specific example with GPS where the two frames would measure a different speed of light. So, light moves through space at one constant speed c, but the machinery of SR is incapable of correctly measuring it.

Yes, given a length of time, the time dilation accumulates. I did not say it does not. That is why in my example, I backed out the time dilation adjustment of the GPS satellite. I understood it accumulated while light traveled from GPS1 to GPS2. But, I did say integration is not required for inertial motion. So, we are in agreement that time dilation will apply for any elapsed time period from a moving frame to a stationary frame. But, GPS is missing the term (-vx/c²)λ and does not require it. So SR does not correctly predict the results of a widely known experiment.

1) I do not need to integrate when discussing SR and inertial motion. 2) The frequency of a satellite is adjusted for many things, time dilation being one of them. And, no it does not accumululate as the distance grows in GPS, but it does with SR given t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ. So, the GPS example I gave clearly demonstrates two different path lengths for the laser shot from GPS1 to GPS2, where compared to the ground. The clocks for both frames are in sync and so the time for the laser flight is the same for both path lengths. Yet, the time dilation in GPS must be backed out However, the term (-vx/c²)λ is missing as required by SR. Therefore, the experiment of GPS does not match the SR predictions and the two frames would measure a different speed of light given this experiment. Here is a specific example. Assume two GPS satellites 3.9 km apart. When GPS1 is exactly vertical to a ground clock, it fires a laser at GPS2. λ = c/√( c² - v²) = √( 299,792.458² - 3.9²) = 1.0000000000846 The GPS frame say measures a t of 3.9/299,792.458 = 1.3009e-5 seconds. Now, back out the programming of the time dilation. But it rounds to 1.3009e-5 seconds because of the slow relative speed. For the earth frame, the ground clock 1 will determine the path length to be vt + d/λ So, vt + d/λ = 3.9*1.3009e-5 + 3.9/1.0000000000846 = 3.900051 km Obviously, the two path lengths are different. So, the speed of light in the earth frame is 3.900051/1.3009e-5 = 299796.3717 And 299796.3717 - 299,792.458 = 3.9137426397109693289261280651856km/s Which is basically the relative speed of the GPS clocks compared to the ground clocks.

I am not applying it twice. But, to be technically correct, when doing a GPS experiment, you need to back out the preprogrammed time dilation in the satellites when you compare the ground clock time with the orbit frame time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged OK, what I am doing is forcing the equation t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ up against the experiment evidence of GPS. GPS only has a time dilation term built into it and not the full LT transformation. If the full LT transformatiuon were true, then the further the x distance of the GPS satellite from the ground based receiver, since the GPS is in relative motion to the ground receiver, the more out of sync the GPS time should become. It does not.

From the ground based clocks, because of the motion of a GPS satellite, ignoring Sagnac and GR, the clocks in orbit would beat slow, so they are upward adjusted before launch by applying the term t' = tλ and altering the frequency. t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ t' = tλ - vxλ/c² So, there is an additional adjustment that should be showing up in the ground based clocks under SR, if SR were accurate, as (-vxλ/c²). That is not happening. No matter the x, the GPS satellite does not need this additional adjustment for the ground based clocks. But, SR is very specific based with the full theory of t' = tλ - vxλ/c², the further away the moving clocks are from the stationary clock, the more out of sync. This is false based on the scientific evidence.

Absolutely correct. I am not at all advocating Ritz's theory. Tests from moving light source also rule this out. So, that is not what I am saying. I am saying exactly half of what you are saying. Light moves through space at one speed c regardless of the motion of the emitter. We agree on this fact. Now, we need to find a way to measure this. We cannot use frequency, because as a method it cannot rule out Ritz's theory and thus cannot be used as a reliable tool for measuing the absolute constant speed of light. Further, light motion is completely independent of any frame's motion. Here are Einstein's words. I certainly knew that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is something quite independent of the relativity postulate; and I considered what would be more probable, the principle of the constancy of c, as was demanded by Maxwell’s equations, or the constancy of c, exclusively for an observer sitting at the light source. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/01/Norton.doc So, given that the motion of light is indendent of the frame's motion and independent of all frames in the universe, how do we use the coordinates of the frame to measure the light path? That is the problen, because we do not know how these coordinates are moving through space. Some say at this point, moving relative to what? That is the point, we do not know. In addition, Einstein suggersted that the light path is exactly the same as the path between the emission point in the frame and the termination point. He said this is true based on experience. But, this is completely false because there are no such experiments to verify this. Yes, you are correct. Here is the GPS link, chapter 5, it is well written. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/ Since GR and Sagnac are accounted for in GPS, we can ignore them or we are double counting them. They have already been handled in GPS. And you are correct and that is my whole point, reality wins and we have relative motion but this equation does not apply and is not part of GPS, only time dilation is. t' = ( r - vx/c²)λ So, my thought experiment is not trying to prove GPS does not work, it does, it is proving that t' = ( t - vx/c²) does not. Now, GPS says it validates SR because of time dilation, but that is only the adjustment tλ. The adjustment (-vxλ/c²) is missing and that is full SR. LT - Lorentzian Transformations Well, there is the doppler/frequency version and there is the time version. The mathematical definition for the time version is (-vxλ/c²) . I will call it whatever you want though. GPS works just fine. It does not contain this adjustment (-vxλ/c²) as required by t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ of SR. Since we have relative motion and GPS works without (-vxλ/c²) , then we can conclude this term is not needed for relative motion as SR claims. Thus, GPS needs 1) GR 2) Sagnac 3) Time dilation and not 4) (-vxλ/c²) Then post #60 went on to show the earth frame and the GPS frame measure a different speed of light. This absolutely does not say though that light speed is not constant. It simply shows the measurement technique of SR does not work but SR is built on this technique.

I read everything. I also gave extremely specific examples also like with GPS and twin spheres. We are on measuring c and giving an experimental proof of clock timing without frequency. For example, some offered MMX as a proof. I countered with evidence that MMX does not rule out emission theory and thus does not prove the light postulate. Now, Einstein said that it is with experience that the light path is exactly the same as the path between the emission point in the frame and the receiver. There is no such experience. So far this matter is not resolved. Now, we could simply accept this on blind faith without any type of proof, but I have demonstrated specific problems with trying to measure c. No one is arguing here that light is not a constant in terms of its motion through space. That has been experimentally proven. So, the focus of this discussion is on the light path and how to know it. Again, I have offered examples that show we cannot know it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is false. I supplied a link to a GPS paper. This paper factors in 1) GR 2) Sagnac 3) Time dilation I said all this. Now, the satellites are synched with the ground based clocks. That is not debatable. I then set up a thought experiment. Since GPS does account for GR and Sagnac, these can be accepted as factored out of the results. In other words, but adjusting for these, it is equivalent to these effects not existing. Now, if they had not been factoired into the GPS clock beat, then your point would be valid to mention them. Now, with LT t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ Since, GPS and the ground clocks only differ by time dilation, factoring out GR and Sagnac, we are missing the term (vx/c²) λ and what lingo do you use for this? Others in physics call is the simultaneity shift. Either way, if LT is correct, then it is the case that the further a GPS satellite is from a gound clock, the more out of sync it must become with the ground clock and that is false. If that is false, then as my thought experiment showed, the gound and GPS frames will not measure the same value for c. It is this term (vx/c²)λ that causes rwo frames in relative motion to measure the same value of c for the same light beam. Again, GPS does not program for this term. Thus, LT is not a valid explanation for this light beam event. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks for the post. What differences are you comparing?

I have. There are many problems. No one here can prove the distance light travels is the distance between the light emission point and the receiver in the frame. Further, I offered a simple GPS experiment to demonstrate light cannot be measured c in 2 frames. Yet no one addressed these issues. Finally, I offered twin rigid body spheres and no one could prove two different origins for the light sphere. So, if you can produce proofs that these are wrong, let's see them. Otherwise, he gave up because he failed.

OK, when you recharge, let's get back to the math proofs.

where and how.

Again, you evaded showing by a math proof or experiment that d = ct in a frame which is necessary for the survival of SR. Why? I did all this. there are 2 light spheres required to complete the mission. I posted the example in post #93. As I said, post #60, and I was very specific, light is measured different speeds. Since I was quite specific, it should be easy to refute it.

Yes, well I would like to see this motor thing since you used diodes before to control timing. I want to know exactly how it is done. So far, all the posts indicate they use frequencey to determine distance and you have not come up with any logical refutation to this. I would like to see a paper or an explanation from you on exactly how you measure distance. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No you do not. But, you are avoiding the issues. First, I showed the light path is logically undecidable under SR. Second, I showed SR requires 2 different light spheres to complete its mission Finally, I showed with GPS, SR cannot measure at c in 2 frames. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How do you have a good discussion going if you do not have the math?

Lightcones? Glad your used plural. Let there are two rigid body spheres in collinear relative motion. The “moving” rigid body sphere has a light source at its center. When these spheres are coincident, the light emits. According to SR, light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame and strikes the sphere points simultaneously. Likewise, the light also proceeds spherically in the moving frame and strikes its sphere points simultaneously also. Now, the light sphere in the stationary frame has an origin at (0,0) The origin of the light sphere in the moving frame has an origin at (vt,0) after any time t. Thus, there are two light spheres. Do you know how this is hidden? In the worldline map, they origin the light cones at the same 0. But, the above exercise shows the light sphere is at two different origins. Anyway, can you prove the light path is equal to the emission point in the frame to the light receiver? I cannot. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Also, if you look at post #60, I give an example that c is measured at two different values under the logic of SR and GPS.

Let's go here later. Well, since light moves though space, how are you going to fix these in space? For example, you shoot a laser from the west to the east. While light is moving toward the target, does the targety sit still in space? I am not taking about the frame, I am talking about space, since a frame is just a coordinate system. So, will the target remain in fixed in the same space as the light beam? Nope, I am not having trouble understanding SR. Let's prove together that the light path, which is independent of the frame, is the same as the path between the emission point in the frame and the light receiver in the frame. That is what we are really working on. How would you prove it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged which are not interferometry OK, I trust you answer here. We are measure a time delay bassed on an increase of distance, we increase the distance OK, how are you measuring distance? Everything I read in that paper is frequency based and I have not yet seen how you have separated from this. I found this also http://faculty.virginia.edu/bpate-lab/Time%20Domain/Misc_Pages/PumpProbe.html This is frequency based for the distance measurement. Here is more using amplitude. Time domain pump-probe THz spectrometer The setup is capable of measuring the amplitude transmissivity in the frequency region 200Ghz-2.5 THz. In the pump-probe mode the time evolution of the amplitude transmissivity after excitation with an optical pump pulse on a few picosecond timescale is accessible. Maximum available excitation fluence at the sample is ~10 uJ/cm^2 with the photon energy 1.5 eV. Time Resolution At present the temporal resolution of the pump-and-probe experiments at FLASH depends on the length of the optical laser pulses, which is 120 femtoseconds at 800 nanometers in the infrared and 12 picoseconds for visible light at 523 nanometers. The width of the ATI cross-correlation signal is mainly determined by the temporal jitter of the FEL pulses with respect to the optical laser and represents the overall temporal resolution of around 250 femtoseconds (rms). http://hasylab.desy.de/facilities/flash/research/timing_of_femtosecond_pump_and_probe_pulses/index_eng.html

I did not say light is an inertial frame No, we are not talking about two frames. We are talking about light and the frame. We are talking about measuring its speed. So, how would you do it?

This is all fine. But, since you argue that light moves through emoty space at c, and I also agree, then you have to use the coordinates of light to measure it. Further, when you say light moves through space, you must decide, if your selected coordinates move through space. I seriously doubt that anyone would claim objects do not move through space. Thus, coordinates of the frame are somehow moving through space. Therefore, coordinates move through space and light moves through space. So, unless you know how the coordinates are moving through space, you cannot use these coordinates to measure how light is moving through space. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This paper says your stuff is interferometry which is MMX. All logic in the paper references frequency measurements. So, precisely how are you measuring time if not with clocks and not with frequency?

When you say you measure the signal, you are measuring frequency. So, this statement should read Now if the light frequency were not constant and was varying in direction the two decaying traces will be different widths, they are not. I already agree the freqeuncy of light does not change in a single frame. Also, if your experiment is clock based, you would not need two lasers. You are just doing one way MMX. If you look at this paper, In particular, double-probe frequency domain interferometry (FDI), which has come into widespread use in high-field laser-plasma experiments Also, look at figure 2 and it is clear this is an MMX derivative. http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/ifs/ifsreports/1051_Zgadzaj.pdf Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Wait. Do you agree your coordinates are moving in some unknown way? If so, Einstein's assertion is false.

OK, let's pick the earth frame. Is it moving around the sun? So, how do you measure light with a set of coordinates that are moving through space since light moves though space at c?

this shows your proposal that c is different in different directions to be false I never said this and do not believe this. From the emission point in space, light moves c in all directions. That is my view. therefore from that can calculate the time it takes the light to travel You are calculating time with what? Also, As the pulse energies for femtosecond pulses are usually small, the measured signal has to be obtained from the overlap region of two focused laser beams. http://spie.org/x648.html?product_id=723954 This description is comparing two signals ie frequencies. How is this what you are saying? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Wait, I am not refuting any experiment. How did you get that? I am saying there is no experiments that times the speed of light with clocks. Einstein claimed it is true, yet it is false. It has been verified that light travels through space at one speed. Now we need a way to time this. Yes, you may put an MMX experiment on a train and it will produce null result. You may put it on the earth or sun or wherever and it will produce a null result. That is the nature of frequency, it matches the frame. So, this is very good to depend on frequency since it is very dependable. That does not measure the speed of light though since MMX is consistent with Ritz's theory.

Nope this is not the light pistulate. Since so many are confused, I only accept Einstein's version. Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ You cannot find any measure logic in this postulate. It is talking about motion. It says light moves through space at c. Now, how do you measure it. See how these are different issues. However, what I will grant you is that Einstein used this postulate and all of a sudden out of nowhere, he concluded the light path is the same as the path between the emission point in the frame and the receiver. So, here is the real question now. Given Einstein's version of the light postulate, can you prove the light path is the same as the path between the emission point in the frame and the receiver? This is how it is claimed to be measured. I will tell you how Einstein proved it. In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A - tA) = c. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ See, he simply asserted it and did not prove it. There has been no experiments done with clocks which t'A and tA reference. There is a 3rd hidden postulate based on his statement above. Postulate 3 - The light path is the same as the path between the emission point in the frame and the receiver. Normally, when folks attack relativity, they make assertions they cannot prove. Well, this is exactly what I found in SR based on Einstein's statement above. So, what I am I really saying? The distance light travels from emission to reception is not logically decidable. Do you ever say what light is moving relative to? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, I look it up and signal is known to be frequency. Where are the clocks? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Of course they are related. That is a far cry from saying they are equivalent which they are not. I showed an MMX experiment with different length armatures and a null result. This can never happen in a clock based environment since the path lengths of light would be different. This demonstrates, as measuring techniques, they are different.

Yes, but this is measuring frequency. It is reliable because the frequency is constant in all directions and all distances in a frame. But, this is not measuring the speed of light.

Anyway, the speed of light c, is with respect to the motion of light as defined in any inertial reference frame. The light postulate says the motion of light is independent of the frame's motion "source motion". Then, its motion is defined by the frame. That is circular. Also, the issue is how to measure it. And light does not move relative to a frame. The is light emossion theory. It moves through space whether a frame is around or not. So what is light moving relative to? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Found a source. As the pulse energies for femtosecond pulses are usually small, the measured signal has to be obtained from the overlap region of two focused laser beams. Signal is frequency. http://spie.org/x648.html?product_id=723954 Frequency is very good for these applications because it is constant in all directions in a frame and has been validated as such.

Yes, that implies we need to know what the motion of light is relative to. The motion of objects is relative to the same thing the motion of light is relative to. Actually, to be more accurate, light moves through any frame at c. That is what the light postulate says and nothing more. Now, it becomes a question on how to measure it in a universe of motion. So, given that light moves though empty space at a constant c, how do we measure it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Delay times validate that light speed cannot be speed injected with the source. I completely agree and would cite that as well. But, please let me see this experiment. Again, I do not argue that light is not constant in speed. I do agree it moves through empty space at one speed. It is now a question of measuring it. That is whst we are discussing. Further, if someone proved it did not measure c, that does not at all imply it does not travel at c. Logically, do you believe when light takes off toward a receiver that the receiver sits still in space as light moves toward it?

You mean you have an experiment that measures the same value c in all directions. Light moves through space as a constant c. I am aware of one way frequency based experiments. These just prove the frequency is constant in all directions in a frame. Frequency is a funciton of speed and wavelength. This is why frequency cannot be used to decision a measured speed. Furthermore, it has been shown that the frequency would be a constant in Ritz's theory of light in all directions. The experiment must use clocks and no such experiment exists. At one mile, these clocks must be accurate at 10-13 seconds to even consider the experiment. To further this analysis, The Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, “Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time”, Phys. Rev. 42 400–418 (1932). This uses an interferometer similar to Michelson's, except that its arms are of different length, and are not at right angles to each other. They used a spectacular technique to keep the apparatus temperature constant to 0.001°C, which gave them sufficient stability to permit observations during several seasons. They also used photographs of their fringes (rather than observing them in real time as in most other interferometer experiments). Their apparatus was fixed to the Earth and could only rotate with it. Their null result is consistent with SR. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#round-trip_tests Note the armature lengths are different. If MMX or any frequency based experiment actually measured speed, then a null result would be impossible. That is obviously because the timing along a shorter path and longer path should be different with a constant speed of light. This experiment is sufficient to exclude frequency based experiments as timing instruments for measuring the constant speed of light.

You will need to explain to me further what you mean by movement of a frame Agreed, since I opended the door, it is up to me. I do not have a precise definition. It is the unknown motion i guess folks call absolute motion. What I do know is that objects moves through space just like light does. Light moves through empty space at one speed c. Obviously, this does not apply to objects. But, I simply cannot logically conclude is while light moves through space, a light receiver will sit still in space waiting for light to strike it. For example, it is widely accepted that the dominant motion of the earth through space is about 18.55 miles per second. Now, the milky way is somehow moving and that motion is not known. So, if two satellites are lined up in the direction of the earth's orbit and are say 30,000 miles apart and assume one shoots in the direction of the orbit toward thje other. So, SR assumes the light path is eactly d or 30,000. But, light moves, at ≈ 186,000 for the ease of the math. Then, if t = d/c then t = 30,000/186000 = 0.161 seconds. But, in .161 seconds, the satellite moves in the direction of the earth's orbit and thus, 18.55 * 0.161 ≈ 3 miles. Therefore, the light path is longer than d. But, since it is not known exactly how the earth is moving this is guess work. But, the main point is that the light path may or may not be d and therefore, it is not logically decidable. That is my main point. SR hides a postulate that this light path is always d but this is not part of the light postulate since that postulate only addresses the motion of light that is constant in speed regardless of the motion of the light source. Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Experimentally, light has been proven only to be constant ie that it cannot be speed injected. Invariance actually, under the context of SR, means that the light path is exactly equal to the path between the light emission point in the frame and receiver. This has not been experimentally proven and is crucial to verify the simultaneity shift between two observers in relative motion. GPS has proven the time dilation but not the simultaneity shift which is this light path issue. Here is what I mean. GPS1 GPS2 ->v | | | | | | | Ground Clock 1 Ground Clock 2 When GPS1 is vertical with ground clock 1, it shoots a laser at GPS2. GPS1 and GPS2 are d apart. GPS1-----------------------------------------------GPS2 ->v | | | | | | | Ground Clock 1 Ground Clock 2 When the laser strikes GPS2, GPS2 is vertical with ground clock 2. Also all clocks are in sync. The ground concludes the light path is the distance d2 from ground 1 to ground 2. The satellites conclude the light path distance is d < d2. GPS2 then beams the light travel time to the geound clock 1 and it measures a slower speed of light compared to the GPS frame. Time dilation is part of GPS, so that needs to be backed out. But, that is insufficient to explain the measuring difference since the simultaneity shift term is not in the calculation for synching the ground and satellite clocks. Thus, they will measure a different speed of light, though light moves at a constant c.