lidal

Typing errors: ( 2D/ ( c - v ) ) - 2D/c = 2D v / v(c-v) 2D v / c(c-v) t0 + 2D v / v(c-v) t0 + 2D v / c(c-v) t2 = [ t0 + 2D v / v(c-v) ] + D/(c+v) t2 = [ t0 + 2D v / c(c-v) ] + D/(c+v)

Let me clarify the new synchronization procedure described in the OP and the difference from the standard procedure. In the standard procedure, the synch pulse is sent from the mid- point to the clocks at S1 and S2. The clocks, upon receiving the synch pulses, are set to t = 0 and start counting from there. Absolute motion will have no effect in this case. In the new procedure I have proposed (assuming isotropy of the speed of light), the clock at S1 is set to t = 0 and at the same time a synch pulse is sent from S1 to S2. The clock at S2, upon receiving the pulse, is set to t= 2D/c , and starts counting from there. This procedure will be affected by absolute motion and the clocks will be out of synch, which will manifest as time difference (at the detector) of 'simultaneously' emitted pulses from S1 and S2. In the case of synchronizing from the center, the effect of absolute motion will be cancelled (the so-called 'two way speed of light' )

@studiot @Bufofrog I think, with regard to what you said about the two physicists measuring the same phenomena, and what I said about experiments confined to the closed room, we are talking about the same idea. By a little more logic, my idea leads to yours. I will show. Let me first say something about the origins of relativity. Correct me if I am wrong somewhere. The principle of relativity was first proposed by Galileo. I would say that it was a very intelligent guess by Galileo, overturning thousands years of thinking. (I say this because, the principle of relativity holds to very good approximation in most systems, for example the Solar System. I am only saying that it can’t be fundamentally correct). I can see that when Galileo thought up this idea, about doing experiments in a closed room, he had mechanical, acoustic and other classical phenomena in his mind. Light was little understood phenomenon then. It was not even known whether light had finite or infinite speed. So Galileo couldn't have considered experiments involving light in his principle. Then Newton believed light was made of particles. During the intervening centuries between Galileo/Newton and Einstein, much was understood about light, such as its wave nature and speed. On the contrary, however, light also appeared to exhibit contradicting and inconsistent behavior in different experiments. The Arago and Airy experiments led to more confusions than understanding in that the speed of light couldn’t be modeled consistently according to particle theory or wave theory. Then arrived the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. The prediction of Maxwell's equations, as confirmed by light speed measuring experiments, was also a huge development. In the second half of the 19th century, with the new knowledge about the phenomenon of light, scientists started reconsidering the principle of relativity. The phenomenon of light appeared to be a problem for relativity. Galileo had seen no problem with his principle. So what problem did the new knowledge about the phenomenon of light cause to relativity? After all, the then new experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, brought additional evidence for relativity. The problem was: 1. Light exhibited overwhelming wave phenomenon. Evidence: Young's double-slit experiment, Poisson’s spot, Maxwell's equations, refraction, diffraction, etc. Problem: what is its medium of propagation, c relative to what?, such medium was disproved by MM experiment. 2. But the Michelson-Morley exp't appeared to prove particle nature. Problem: No c+V in Maxwell's equations, conceptual problems, Einstein weighed these evidences. The MM null result convinced him no absolute motion existed and he made up his mind and fully adopted the principle of relativity (PR). But which model of light conforms to relativity? The particle nature was consistent with PR. This had even led Einstein to consider emission theory seriously before eventually abandoning it in favor of wave theory. Einstein's Most Famous Thought Experiment (pitt.edu) And in wave theory, the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source, analogous to sound. There were also indirect and inconclusive astronomical evidences that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source. (the Arago and the Airy experiments). Note that this is the second postulate of Einstein!. Note that terrestrial experiments to test this were yet to be performed nearly a decade later, such as by the Q.Majorana experiment. So far Einstein has made up his mind about two ideas: the principle of relativity and the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of its source (the two postulates!). Now Einstein had to reconcile these. What was the problem? Let us go back to the two physicists in different inertial frames doing physics experiments in closed rooms. Now imagine both physicists doing a moving source experiment in their respective rooms. Each of them uses their own light source. Both always measure the speed of light to be c, independent of the velocity of the source relative to their room (lab). Assume that room B is moving with velocity u relative to room A, as shown. The observers are at rest in each room. Assume that the light source (SB ) in room/lab B is at rest relative to the room, but the source (SA ) in room A is moving towards (relative to) the observer in room A with velocity u, which is equal to the velocity (u) of room B relative to room A, as shown. Notice the openings in each room. The light of SB goes not only to the observer in room B, but also to the observer in room A, through the holes. The observer in A measures the speed of light from SA to be constant c independent of the source velocity, in accordance with Einstein’s second postulate. The observer in B also measures the speed of light from SB to be constant c. But the observer in A also receives the light from SB through the hole. The question is: what is the speed of this light? If the velocity of light from SB is equal to c relative to the observer in B, then according to Galilean principle of relativity, the velocity of the same light will be c+v relative to the observer in A. Now the contradiction arises. Note that both SA and SB are moving towards the observer with velocity u. Even though SB is at rest in B, because of the velocity of room B relative to room A, SB is also moving towards A with velocity u. At this point a question may arise: why make holes in the rooms? The logic is that the observer in A can consider SB to be in his own room, even though it is physically outside his own room. Galilean relativity predicts that the observer in A measures the speed of light from SA to be c and the speed of light from SB to be c + v, even though both sources are moving with equal velocities (u) towards the observer ! Therefore, since this is a direct contradiction, Einstein would conclude that the speed of light from SB also must be c relative to the observer in A. But then a contradiction arises again. Observers in both rooms will measure the same velocity c of light from SB , even though they are in relative motion ! How can two observers in relative motion measure equal velocities of the same bullet going past them?! Of course this is not true for bullets. This is Einstein’s conclusion: the speed of a light beam is always equal to c as measured by observers in relative motion. And how can this be? Relativity of space and time. Lorentz transformations. Thank you for making your stand clear. I have no problem with your conclusion because a real experiment can decide between us. No, I didn't start from assuming that relativity is wrong. I suspected inconsistencies in the way experimental facts are interpreted in support for SRT. This led me to try abandoning the relativistic procedure and following the classical procedure, and I found a result that could make many physicists think again about special relativity. ( not including the likes of you who have stated their view in favor of relativity).

But Galileo's relativity is about an inertial observer in a closed room doing physical experiments contained in the room. Galileo's principle of relativity states that the observer cannot determine his motion by such experiment. The principle of relativity is about inability to detect absolute motion inside a closed room with an experiment contained in that room. The physicist in the room does experiments by using light sources, sound sources, magnets, charges, pendulums, masses etc.contained in that room. He can then demonstrate the principle of relativity, from absence of any change in observed phenomena with change in velocity. If the observer measures, say sound from a source on the shore, he/ she would receive Doppler shifted sound, only measuring relative velocity. How can this demonstrate the principle of relativity , that is absence of absolute motion? You said it is vital that both physicists measure the same physical quantity, to be able to compare what the two physicists measure. I would say that (Galileo's) relativity is about the two physicists in different inertial frames doing identical experiments contained in the labs and obtaining identical results regardless of their relative motion. What do you mean by the observers measuring the same physical quantity? Do you mean, for example, light emitted from the same source? So far, when I say relativity, I am referring to Galilean relativity. I am thinking about your comment in relation to Einstein's relativity and will get back to you.

But I haven't mentioned 'isotropy of space' in my OP or any of my comments. Meanwhile I will read the rest of your comments and get back to you. No, the way I understand relativity is that the two physicists are doing an experiment completely contained in a closed room. They are not measuring sound or light emitted from some source outside their own room. Everything, the light source, the detector etc. are contained in the room. In that case each physicist will formulate identical laws for Doppler effect of light or sound, by doing experiments in which the source is moving relative to the room.

The principle of relativity states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Suppose that two physicists in different inertial frames do similar experiments. From the experiments, they formulate the laws of physics. Relativity says that both physicists will come up with and formulate identical laws of physics. An example of a law in physics is the speed of light. Relativity says both physicists will discover the speed of light to be equal to c. Isotropy of the speed of light: In all inertial frames, the speed of light is equal to c , and that does not depend on direction. If a physicist does an experiment to measure the speed of light in different directions in a lab, by dividing the distance travelled by light in a unit of time, he/she will always get the same result : c .

Thank you for understanding. It is one thing to understand what I am saying and reject or accept it. It is another thing to (intentionally) not understand and twist it.

Do we need to debate about the Silvertooth and the Marinov experiments again? No, I don't necessarily need them this time. I have figured out a simple thought experiment that will make physicists scratch their heads. You brought up a good point. Why absolute velocity doesn't show up in the Sagnac effect can be extremely subtle to understand. I have only this to say for now: the effect of absolute translational motion on the Sagnac effect is to delay each light beam equally, so no effect on fringe positions. (my new theory) The same explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment null result. You don't seem to understand the whole point because you are busy searching the internet to find other sites where I have posted the same topic. I suspected and abandoned the relativistic approach from the beginning. I started with a classical approach and found a result that can divide physicists. Will the two pulses in the thought experiment arrive simultaneously or not? No, v is absolute velocity. But my present argument is not like such and such experiment proves absolute motion. It is a simple thought experiment. Again let us not forget where we started: the thought experiment. I hope to do the real experiment and get back to you one day.

The v in my equations is very subtle, but I just stated it to be the velocity of the ship relative to the sea, at least. v is actually absolute velocity, some 390 km/s, but I did not want to refer to it as absolute velocity. In fact, if an actual experiment was done, the time difference between the two pulses is determined by absolute velocity of the ship, not by the velocity of the ship relative to the sea. If you assume absolute reference frame, then there will be a change in the time light will take to reach the detector even if they are co-moving. The reason I chose to base my argument on the velocity of the ship relative to the sea is that, we can agree on whether or not the ship is moving relative to the sea (we will not agree whether it is moving relative to the invisible, 'disproved' absolute frame). And we can somehow agree that light will take more time to catch up with a detector moving away from the point of emission (in the frame of the sea). If we agree on this, I can disprove the relativistic clock synchronization procedure.

Can you put this in another way? I don't understand it when you say "S2 is not receding" And did you mean S1 when you said S2?

I didn't mention the frame because it was too obvious. Since we are talking about time difference as measured in the ship's frame, I meant simultaneous in the reference frame of the ship. And which of your comments did I fail to address? In the one comment you already gave, it seemed you didn't mean it to be replied to because it was more general. To address your concern, my argument is not like such and such experiment disproves relativity. I started from a fact that has been a source of confusions and debates: that light takes more time to catch-up with a moving observer. This fact is often used by 'anti-relativists' to refute special relativity, and mainstream accepts it to be conforming to relativity. However, despite countless efforts, I have seen no argument that has made effective use of this fact against SRT. The arguments usually gave room for (not always consistent) relativistic counter-arguments. The present argument leaves no room for such counter-arguments, for example, reference frame arguments, etc. Note again that I am not directly arguing that moving observer experiments disprove relativity. I am using this fact effectively in a way that refutes relativity. I proposed a simple thought experiment. In the thought experiment a simple question was asked: is t2 - t1 = 0 . ( well, in the reference frame of the ship, as measured by the detector). That is, what time difference will the detector record? The time difference could then be printed on paper to avoid "in what reference frame?" arguments.

So you are saying that t2 - t1 = 0, that is the pulses will arrive simultaneously. But the experiment can be approximated to be inertial to a high degree of precision (of course, if you agree on this). Supposing you agree, I would say that the two pulses will not arrive at the detector simultaneously. Since you can't convince me (and I can't convince you) by arguments alone, the only way to settle this would be to carry out a real version of the thought experiment described above. But I also wonder how many mainstream physicists would agree with you when you said the two pulses will arrive simultaneously. Let us not mix-up two things. The proposed experiment and my analysis of the experiment, and therefore my prediction of the outcome (the calculations). I could have omitted the analysis and gone directly to the thought experiment. The experiment is as described already. A physicist is inside a closed room in a steadily sailing ship. He/she is doing a physics experiment. He places a detector at the mid- point between two light sources. The clocks at the sources are synchronized by the relativistic procedure, that is by assuming isotropy of the speed of light. The sources emit short light pulses simultaneously, say, every second. Will the two pulses arrive at the detector simultaneously or not ?

I think the GPS receiver is approximated to be in inertial motion during the very short transit time of the satellite signals. But there is no need for us to argue over whether light takes more time to catch up with an observer moving away from the light source. My argument is simple: in the Galileo's ship thought experiment described in the OP, will t2 - t1 be zero or different from zero ?

For example, GPS Sagnac correction. In the first part, I was only referring to our experience regarding moving observer, for example, GPS Sagnac correction. So you can start reading from the third paragraph talking about Galileo's ship.

No, this is a classical analysis. I am claiming that if a real experiment was done, by following the principle of light speed isotropy to synchronize the clocks, the physicist inside the closed room could detect some time difference between the two pulses, which disproves relativity. My argument is this: 1. If you say that no time difference will be detected, then let an actual experiment be done. 2. If you accept that a difference in time of arrival will be detected, then this disproves relativity.

1. The sources and the detector are fixed to the ship. V is the velocity of the ship. 2. It is not a space ship, it is Galileo's ship steadily sailing on the sea. So it is a terresterial experiment.

A Disproof of the Principle and Theory of Relativity Galileo’s ship thought experiment: Consider a light source emitting a light pulse from some point in the Earth's frame, at t=0. At the instant of light emission, an observer/detector is at distance D from the source and is moving away from the source with velocity v, in the Earth's frame. We know that the light will catch up with the observer/detector at t = D/ ( c - v ) . This is a well-known and accepted fact even in the Special Relativity Theory SRT and has been confirmed by experiments. Now I will use this in my argument against the principle of relativity. Consider Galileo's ship thought experiment. A physicist in a closed room of the ship is doing a physics experiment. There are two light sources S1 and S2, with the distance between them equal to2D. The line connecting the sources is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the ship, and hence to the velocity of the ship. S2 is in front of S1. A detector is placed at the midpoint between the sources, at distance D from each of the sources. The light sources each emit a short light pulse simultaneously every second. The detector detects the time difference between the pulses. The observer in the closed room first has to synchronize the clocks at S1 and S2. For this, a short light pulse is emitted from S1 towards S2. Suppose that S1 emits the light pulse at t=0. The physicist in the closed room synchronizes the clocks based on the principle of isotropy of the speed of light, because according to SRT the speed of light is isotropic in Galileo’s ship! However, unknown to him/her, we know that the clocks synchronized by this procedure will be out of synch by an amount: ( 2D/ ( c - v ) ) - 2D/c = 2D v / v(c-v) The clock at S2 will be behind the clock at S1 by this amount. It should be noted that, according to special relativity, the clocks synchronized by this procedure will be in synch. However, from experience we know that the clocks will be out of synch. Therefore, we know that the relativistic procedure is wrong, based on experience. Therefore we analyze the experiment classically as follows. The sources each emit a short light 'simultaneously' (quoted because the clocks are not actually in synch), every second. The physicist expects the pulses to arrive simultaneously, which they do not, as we will see. Let S1 emit the light pulse at t = t0. Then S2 will emit 'simultaneously' at time, t0 + 2D v / v(c-v) The light from S1 arrives at the detector at time, t1 = t0 + D/(c -v) The light from S2 arrives at the detector at time, t2 = [ t0 + 2D v / v(c-v) ] + D/(c+v) The difference in the time of arrival of the two pulses at the detector will be: t2 - t1 = (2D/c) β2 /(1-β2 ) where β = v/c The physicist synchronized the clocks by assuming isotropy of the speed of light, placed the detector at the midpoint between the sources, and the sources emitted light pulses 'simultaneously'. He/she would expect the light pulses to arrive simultaneously at the detector, which they don't. The light pulses always arrive with a time difference of Δ that depends on velocity. The observer would have no way to explain this other than abandoning the principle of isotropy of the speed of light. To anyone rejecting this argument, my response is this: let an actual experiment be done to test it. We know that the origin of the problem lies in the observer assuming isotropy of the speed of light while synchronizing the clocks. This disproves both the principle and theory of relativity.

The formula for fringe shift applies to any inertial reference frame!

Introduction to Special Relativity, Robert Resnick, page 23 Einstein's Space Time An Introduction to Special and General Relativity, Rafael Ferraro, page 39 Note that ∆t in the formula N = c ∆t / λ , is the change in time difference the two light beams, induced by motion.

The Michelson-Morley (MM ) experiment did not detect a fringe shift because N' = c ∆t'/ λ' = c ( γ ( ∆t - v ∆x/c2 ) ) / (γ λ) = (c ∆t / λ ) - ( v ∆x/(cλ) = 0 , because ∆x = 0 and ∆t = 0. Therefore, in the case of MM, N= N' = 0 . The Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the only experiment to which special relativity applies correctly.

In this case I did not mention in support for my argument. The formula N = c ∆t / λ, is not specific to the Sagnac effect; it applies also to the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Go to the formula for the fringe shift, n : n = ( ∆λ1 - ∆λ2 )/ λ where ∆λ1 and ∆λ1 are the difference in path lengths of the two beams for two absolute velocities. Also read the Wikipedia article " Sagnac effect ".

You may read " Michelson-Morley experiment", Wikipedia ∆t is the (change in ) difference in arrival times of the two interfering light beams, caused by observer motion (for example, Sagnac effect) or possibly absolute motion. Also, " Sagnac effect" , Wikipedia ∆ф = 2Πc∆t/λ

It is a basic requirement of special relativity theory (SRT) that all relatively moving inertial observers agree on an observable (interference fringe shift, for example). It is shown that SRT trivially leads to a disagreement on the observables ( interference fringe shift) in two relatively moving inertial reference frames. Suppose that the interference fringe shift of a light speed experiment predicted in frame S is N, and the fringe shift predicted in frame S’ for the same experiment is N’. It is a requirement of relativity theory that there should be an agreement on the observable (the fringe shift) in both frames, i.e. N = N’. Let us see if this is actually the case. We know that, N = c ∆t / λ and N' = c ∆t' / λ' But, ∆t' = γ ( ∆t - v ∆x/c2 ) and λ' = γ λ Therefore, N' = c ∆t' / λ' = c ( γ ( ∆t - v ∆x/c2 ) ) / (γ λ) = (c ∆t / λ ) - ( v ∆x/(cλ) = N - ( v ∆x/(cλ) ≠ N Galilean relativity, however, does not lead to such disagreement, as shown below. ∆x' = ∆x - v ∆t ∆t' = ∆t c' = c ± V ⟹ c' / c = 1± v/c f' = f ⟹ c' / λ' = c / λ ⟹ λ' = λ (1± v/c) Therefore, N' = ( c' ∆t' ) / λ' = ( c ± V ) (∆t) / λ (1± v/c) = c ∆t / λ = N trivial disproof of SRT 3 FINAL.pdf

Yes, I think it is because I used linear addition of velocities. Thank you for the help.