JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Although experiment proves c to be invariant, relativity also proves c to be variant at the same time. An observer in motion with a slower frequency of time relative to an observer at relative rest in an inertia frame will measure different speeds of light due to the very fact of γ/dx=c -2
Strange Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 The whole point is that all observers measure the same speed of light. This is what theory says and what measurements confirm. So claiming otherwise is just wrong. Today's Top Tip: if you think you have spotted a trivial flaw in special relativity then you are certainly wrong and have probably misunderstood something.
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 The whole point is that all observers measure the same speed of light. This is what theory says and what measurements confirm. So claiming otherwise is just wrong. Today's Top Tip: if you think you have spotted a trivial flaw in special relativity then you are certainly wrong and have probably misunderstood something. I have misunderstood nothing , it is a very simple contradiction to observe. May I suggest you ''listen''? Did you even consider the ''maths''? Ok let me run this by you, John at relative rest in an inertia reference frame measures time to be 1 second = 9,192,631,770 Hz Alan who is in relative motion, measures time to be 1 second = 9,192,631,760 Hz How can John and Alan both ever agree on the speed of something when d/t = speed? -2
swansont Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Time isn't slower in their frame, according to them. They will measure c. I have misunderstood nothing , it is a very simple contradiction to observe. May I suggest you ''listen''? Did you even consider the ''maths''? Ok let me run this by you, John at relative rest in an inertia reference frame measures time to be 1 second = 9,192,631,770 Hz Alan who is in relative motion, measures time to be 1 second = 9,192,631,760 Hz How can John and Alan both ever agree on the speed of something when d/t = speed? Lengths contract by the same factor.
Delta1212 Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Yes, the long and short of it is that observers in different frames will agree on neither the total elapsed time nor the distance travelled during that time. It winds up balancing out to give the same speed for light no matter what frame you are observing it from.
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 Time isn't slower in their frame, according to them. They will measure c. Lengths contract by the same factor. If you are contracting the length by subjective thinking, then nothing is different to begin with. what length are you trying to contract? I am measuring the speed light takes to travel a set distance in a vacuum, γ/dx We measure speed by t/d , I measure a faster speed of light than you do because my speed of time is slower than yours. Although I am unaware that my clock is ticking ''slower'' , when I get back , we can compare the results to see that I am correct. Yes, the long and short of it is that observers in different frames will agree on neither the total elapsed time nor the distance travelled during that time. It winds up balancing out to give the same speed for light no matter what frame you are observing it from. Observers can not agree on speed if they can not agree on the speed of time.
Manticore Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 I have misunderstood nothing , it is a very simple contradiction to observe. May I suggest you ''listen''? Did you even consider the ''maths''? Ok let me run this by you, John at relative rest in an inertia reference frame measures time to be 1 second = 9,192,631,770 Hz Alan who is in relative motion, measures time to be 1 second = 9,192,631,760 Hz How can John and Alan both ever agree on the speed of something when d/t = speed? They are both at rest in their own frames - each is moving relative to the other's frame.
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 They are both at rest in their own frames - each is moving relative to the other's frame. Ok, both John and Alan are at rest in their relative reference frames suffering from simultaneity, their Caesium standard frequency being differential to begin with, they both are using different speeds of time. M1 is not equal to m2 Although experiment proves c to be invariant, relativity also proves c to be variant at the same time. An observer in motion with a slower frequency of time relative to an observer at relative rest in an inertia frame will measure different speeds of light due to the very fact of γ/dx=c I can't believe somebody has clicked dislike or what ever the - is,
DrP Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 I can believe it - the statement is wrong, so someone marked it -ve so other people wouldn't think it is correct. It wasn't me, but I get why they gave it to you. Your statement that C will be can be measured to have different values isn't what is observed when it is measured - it always comes out as C. Your statement contradicts the theories and measured observable experimental results that are well know. Maybe if it was asked as a question ("CAN C be measured at different values....") Rather than as a statement of fact it might not get such a negative reaction.
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 I can believe it - the statement is wrong, so someone marked it -ve so other people wouldn't think it is correct. It wasn't me, but I get why they gave it to you. Your statement that C will be can be measured to have different values isn't what is observed when it is measured - it always comes out as C. Your statement contradicts the theories and measured observable experimental results that are well know. Maybe if it was asked as a question ("CAN C be measured at different values....") Rather than as a statement of fact it might not get such a negative reaction. I would ask a question if it wasn't fact, however it is fact and may I suggest you think about it and why it is correct. Simultaneity makes it correct. Two observers in different reference frames will observe simultaneity of measuring time. The Caesium we already know proven by countless experiments ''runs'' at different frequencies when displaced . If Alan is on Earth and John is on planet x , they both measure time at different rates/speeds. Speed as you know is t/d , how do you suggest John and Alan time something travelling between two points, when they have different rates/speeds of time?
Mordred Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 You can't apply just one formula 8n this case. Two things happen time dilates and length contracts. Ignoring length contraction arbitrarily simply doesn't make your theory true. You don't get to choose to ignore experimental evidence. This is an extremely well tested theory. 1
DrP Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) It isn't my field - I do not know anything about this 'speed of time' thing you mention. To me Speed is distance / time. When people measure C (the speed of light as 'the distance it travels over the time it takes') they do so by observing from their own reference frame the distance the light has travelled and then they divide that by the time it took. No matter what reference frame you are in C is measured the same - C. Edited May 3, 2017 by DrP
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 You can't apply just one formula 8n this case. Two things happen time dilates and length contracts. Ignoring length contraction arbitrarily simply doesn't make your theory true. You don't get to choose to ignore experimental evidence. This is an extremely well tested theory. I asked Moderator earlier, what are you by subjective thoughts thinking contracts when you say the length contracts? I hope you are not trying to say that (A) travels less distance in a shorter time than travelling a longer distance. Because if that is what I suspect length contraction really means, then you need to re-think.
Strange Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 If you are contracting the length by subjective thinking, then nothing is different to begin with. what length are you trying to contract? I am measuring the speed light takes to travel a set distance in a vacuum, If you accept that time dilation occurs, then you should also accept that length contraction occurs. They have equal standing in special relativity. Observers can not agree on speed if they can not agree on the speed of time. The fact that they disagree on clocks and lengths is because they measure the speed of light to be the same. The changes in length and time are calculated based on a constant speed of light, therefore you can't use them to show the speed of light varies. 3
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) It isn't my field - I do not know anything about this 'speed of time' thing you mention. To me Speed is distance / time. When people measure C (the speed of light as 'the distance it travels over the time it takes') they do so by observing from their own reference frame the distance the light has travelled and then they divide that by the time it took. No matter what reference frame you are in C is measured the same - C. I call it the speed of time or the pace of time or the rate of time, how fast doe's time pass for a person? I got banned last time I brought up this question up so please ignore and stick to this threads notions. This forum is quite hostile and repels all ''invaders'' rather than a welcome open arms. You cant agree on c if you can't agree on timing. (think about that for a while). If you accept that time dilation occurs, then you should also accept that length contraction occurs. They have equal standing in special relativity. The fact that they disagree on clocks and lengths is because they measure the speed of light to be the same. The changes in length and time are calculated based on a constant speed of light, therefore you can't use them to show the speed of light varies. So you can then easily answer for me , what length contracts? added- yes they measure the speed of light to be same, however they can not agree on an actual speed. The can equate their time differential and conclude c is constant, but they still disagree on the speed because they disagree on time. Edited May 3, 2017 by JohnLesser
Lord Antares Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 No, you got banned because you continued to misinterpret relativity through several pages of discussion. You made claims that simultanety was a fact. Look at Strange's answer. It is short and to the point. If the speed of light wasn't constant, then clocks could not be compared. The fact that time and speeds could be measured against a universal contant makes relativity true. Someone could provide you with details and mathematics in hopes that you will understand.
Mordred Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Gravitational redshift provides the evidence of the length contraction. The wavelengths shorten when blueshift occurs. (length contraction) just because you don't understand or agree with something doesn't make it wrong. If you wish to overturn relativity you had best learn what is involved instead of ignoring half the transforms involved on an arbitrary choice. 1
Strange Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 So you can then easily answer for me , what length contracts? The coordinate length. In the same way that coordinate time changes. yes they measure the speed of light to be same, however they can not agree on an actual speed. So they measure the same speed but think it is different. Got it.
Mordred Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) Another piece of evidence that length contraction occurs is that temperature measurements are also affected by observer measurements. Time dilation cannot account for this. It requires a density change. When length contracts, density increases so temperature also increases. We have measured these observer variations. Edited May 3, 2017 by Mordred 1
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) No, you got banned because you continued to misinterpret relativity through several pages of discussion. You made claims that simultanety was a fact. Look at Strange's answer. It is short and to the point. If the speed of light wasn't constant, then clocks could not be compared. The fact that time and speeds could be measured against a universal contant makes relativity true. Someone could provide you with details and mathematics in hopes that you will understand. Ok here it is again, I will look forward to my next ban because I can show that relativity is misinterpreted but the defensiveness for no reasons by yourselves prevents in your understanding. Elsewhere understand. I get banned for arrogance by all your part , the arrogance is not mine, I keep trying and trying and have been dedicated to learning science for several year by self teaching and forums. It is only of late I have learnt how to explain better. The misinterpretation of time dilation Abstract-This paper is intended to show the true nature of time and show that time dilation is greatly misinterpreted. Also this paper aims to prove that Isaac Newton was correct about absolute time which is a conclusion reached by showing the misinterpretation of time dilation and the understanding of time. Premise:Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history). Introduction The orgin of measuement of time, being that of one day was equal to one rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun's position. Throughout history there has been many arguments about time and what is time, scientists, philosophers and the general public have all engaged in ideas about time. At the moment in physics, we use the Caesium standard time, one second = 9,192,631,770 Hz , to measure time passed. In 1914 Albert Einstein submitted his papers about special relativity in which is world widely accepted to be objective reality. Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity. It is world widely accepted that time can slow down or speed up (time dilation), this a notion from Albert Einsteins special relativity papers which has been proven to be true by various experimental observations on many occasions. The more notable of these experimental observations being that of Hafele–Keating. ''Hafele–Keating experiment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.'' Before Albert Einsteins notions about relative time, Issac Newton believed in absolute time, unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time could only ever be understood mathematically. The change of time being so subtle, that humans had the inability to perceive this, humans only having the ability to perceive relative time, in my mind, a mechanical construct of relativity. It is now of course word widely accepted that Newton was disproved about absolute time and Einstein is correct about relative time. However, after several years of looking deep inside the minds of Einstein and Newtons thought's,looking at the evidence, I have come to the relisation that neither Newton or Einstein truly understand time or the measurent of time. Thus leading me to my first axiom and premise for argument, which I observe to be a postulate, any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history). Postulate 1 - Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history). Using to support this postulate I would like to relate this to the big bang. There would be a truth that from the instant of the big bang , history began to be created at the instant of expansion from a 0 point energy or 0 point space. (You may consider this to be 0 time). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ''Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.'' In regards to a single point, it is an impossibility to expand this single point without creating an immediate past proportional to the rate/speed of the expansion. In geometry and vectors , if we can imagine a single point and try to move this point along vector X , it is impossible to move this point without creating an immediate past geometrical position. It neither matters at what speed we try to move the single point along vector X, the amount of distance travelled relatively ''forward'' in geometrical position is directly proportional to it's length of immediate relative past position. Diagram (A) past position<-------------present position------------>future position Diagram (A) shows an object in motion creating a past position travelling towards a future position. Extending this to apply to chronological position, Diagram (B) past..............present> The present can not move forward in time without creating an immediate past. Simultaneity . Albert Einstein is his paper on the electrodynamics of a moving body first mentioned simultaneity, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity ''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another. '' Any observer who devised time by one day being equal to one rotation of their relative planet, would measure a length of one day to be different than another observer's measured day length on their own relative planet , therefore showing a relative difference in their perceived ''speed'' of time. By the ''speed'' of time, I am referring to how fast time passes by for observers. This notion, I have related to Einsteins simultaneity , although Einstein doe's not explain it this way, I believe this is where his thought's should of ended up. I believe Einsteins thoughts were close to the truth but not to the exact truth. I believe this notion of logic to be my second precise postulate and axiom. I am not a troll so stop being defensive...... Edited May 3, 2017 by JohnLesser
Mordred Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) Your right continue ignoring the full transforms simply because it disagrees with you will probably get this thread locked. Secondly universe expansion has nothing to do with the topic of relativity. That is a different set of circumstances. (thermodynamics). So your postulates in that paper is literally incorrect on that basis. It was the experiments itself that showed length contraction occurs. Not the other way around. Edited May 3, 2017 by Mordred
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 So they measure the same speed but think it is different. Got it. yes exactly Your right continue ignoring the full transforms simply because it disagrees with you will probably get this thread locked. Secondly universe expansion has nothing to do with the topic of relativity. That is a different set of circumstances. (thermodynamics) The arrogance is not on my part, your ability to listen is the problem, you are trolling me, not me trolling you, I am serious about science, Have you even read my part paper? Try to find fault if you can ..
Mordred Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Impossible if two people get the same measurement. Then both measurements are the same.
JohnLesser Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 The coordinate length. In the same way that coordinate time changes. But the background does not contract, only the virtual coordinates?
Mordred Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 yes exactly The arrogance is not on my part, your ability to listen is the problem, you are trolling me, not me trolling you, I am serious about science, Have you even read my part paper? Try to find fault if you can .. You might try listening as I have a master degree in physics. Some of those relativity tests I have personally performed in a lab.
Recommended Posts