Masanov Posted July 27, 2005 Author Posted July 27, 2005 ...If you change the angle of the light beam in the sphere S'' date=' do processes slow down or speed up in the sphere S? (See animation)Pls think carefully before you give any answer!!!! [i']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.[/i] 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?
Masanov Posted July 30, 2005 Author Posted July 30, 2005 Light pulses shot in frames S and S' reach the circles at times t. It appears that time t of the frame S is the same as time t of the frame S'. The observer S judges the alpha-distances 1 and 2 passed by the pulses S' by his time t, when his two pulses reached the circle S. Alpha-factor of these distances [relative light speed along this distance/absolute speed] cannot go to time t to create a relative time. If we do so, then pulses S and S' would be seen by the observer S at different times, e.g. time t and time t*alpha-factor1. This is not true: the pulses along alpha-distance 1 of both frames are seen by the observer S at one time. So alpha-factor should go to the speed of the pulse S' to create its relative speed at the alpha-distance. If to suppose that t of S and t of S' are not equal, than pulses S and S' (seen by the observer along certain alpha-distance) should pass distances ct1 and ct2*alpha-factor. If t1 and t2 not equal, than alpha-factor should go to C. Since these times t1 and t2 along alpha1-distance are equal, then alpha-factor also goes to C (because as was said pulses S and S' cannot be seen at different times). http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Refutation(6).htm
Masanov Posted July 30, 2005 Author Posted July 30, 2005 I gonna be a little slower in Refutations, because I have already proved my alegations, and see no other contradictions to my position. I will discuss this mirror tube in Michelson and Morley thread and here. MAIN POINT: inside this mirror tube one can have light pulses zigzag movements 12 cm per second and even less. One can check both Michelson and Morley experiment and the Theory of Relativity using this tube. So, who can propose a good experiment proving relativity of time? We can check it. As for MM experiment, this tube is good, and very good, because it is very quickly reacts to changes in its velocities. E.g. if with one tube's speed the light reflection occurs on one wall, with another speed it could occur on the opposite wall, which seems very convincing.
Masanov Posted August 7, 2005 Author Posted August 7, 2005 See the thread "Light Time Clock" or http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Light_Time_Clock.htm Light Time Clock is the best solution for checking times in inertial frames!
swansont Posted August 7, 2005 Posted August 7, 2005 I gonna be a little slower in Refutations' date=' because I have already proved my alegations, and see no other contradictions to my position.[/quote'] Have you not been reading the posts made by Janus?
Masanov Posted August 14, 2005 Author Posted August 14, 2005 You agreed with 3 times. Janus also, so do not retreat. I can thank Janus for the animation of three relative speeds of light. In the rest he is disagreeable. You also were right, when you said that the Light Time Clock should be checked. But everywhere, first there was an idea first, then volunteers to spend money... If LTC is feasable, then it's a sensation, and a great deal.
ydoaPs Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 i thought with c being constant in all frames, you don't use csinx and ccosx, you just use c
Masanov Posted August 14, 2005 Author Posted August 14, 2005 Is there a difference between the light speed in the mirror tube C*cos alpha and C? Einstein himself took speed V as C*cos alpha in his parralel mirrors experiment, his mirrors "caught up with the light pulse". So it's not a suprise, that angle alpha could be such to allow the speed V to be 1 cm per second!!!! I personnaly also doubt that one can see the light moving with the relative speed 1 cm per second in the direction V, but it's a science, you know. Enjoy it!
Masanov Posted August 20, 2005 Author Posted August 20, 2005 Have you not been reading the posts made by Janus? What posts? Name names, pls Have you been reading my posts, they have nice games for you to play.
swansont Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 What posts? Name names' date=' plsHave you been reading my posts, they have nice games for you to play.[/quote'] All of them. Janus has taken time to point out that you're mistaken, and given pretty clear counterexamples. I don't have the patience to sift through mounds of stuff and find your specific mistakes.
Masanov Posted August 25, 2005 Author Posted August 25, 2005 Try your patience. When I pointed to him three times and asked to explain why those times have angles (vectors), he got silent until now. So, he also agreed that the relative time [without vector] T' [as a combination of times to and from the reflector] cannot be applied separately in each case for example to the reflector. And to be a scientist one ought to have patience. Nevertheless, your impatience plays to my account.
swansont Posted August 25, 2005 Posted August 25, 2005 The problem I have is that you haven't explained your position very clearly. Part of this may be due to English not being your first language, and while I do not fault you for this, it makes communication difficult. I don't see any predictions that can be tested to confirm or refute your position, while in an experiment like the Michelson-Morley experiment, there is a clear prediction: there will be a change in the interference pattern due to absolute motion, and the equation quantifies how much. You cannot measure time-of-flight of your various beams, so your predictions of how they will all be equal cannot be verified. Let me ask you this: Is it possible for the beam travelling in the vertical direction to miss the mirror, because of the motion of the apparatus?
Masanov Posted August 25, 2005 Author Posted August 25, 2005 You cannot measure time-of-flight of your various beams' date=' [/quote']For LTC Time various beams fly with relative speeds, predicted. If viewed from S and shot in S'. Relative times are calculated, not seen.
swansont Posted August 25, 2005 Posted August 25, 2005 For LTC Time various beams fly with relative speeds, predicted. If viewed from S and shot in S'. Relative times are calculated, not seen. If you can't measure it, you cannot demonstrate it to be either true or false. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science.
Masanov Posted August 27, 2005 Author Posted August 27, 2005 If you can't measure it, you cannot demonstrate it to be either true or false. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. ATTENTION! I do not answer when someone is deliberately mixing up what I have said and is making me a liar in public.
swansont Posted August 27, 2005 Posted August 27, 2005 ATTENTION! I do not answer when someone is deliberately mixing up what I have said and is making me a liar in public. If I mixed up what you said, it's not deliberate. As I stated before, it's likely a matter of you not expressing yourself in a way I understand clearly. If that's due to English not being your first language then there is no blame for this. But you seemingly refuse to make mathematical predictions that would clear things up, and for this you are to blame. Now, how about answering this: Is it possible for the beam travelling in the vertical direction to miss the mirror, because of the motion of the apparatus?
Masanov Posted August 27, 2005 Author Posted August 27, 2005 PLS make your separate thread to test me there and do not make me harm by intefering with questions. You both agreed with three times, having angles attached. I appreciate your help, so I do not need your fight here any more. I have found guys who make calculations, read carefully, propose alternate variants. Just look at the page, only your interferance!
Masanov Posted August 27, 2005 Author Posted August 27, 2005 In MM exp thread there are 4 ideas of space. You have to tell you prefer light to spread in the inertial system of the mobile source of light or in the IS of [space==EATHER]?
swansont Posted August 27, 2005 Posted August 27, 2005 PLS make your separate thread to test me there and do not make me harm by intefering with questions. That's not the way it works. You don't get to make a statement - that's not backed up by an experiment and runs contrary to established theory - and not address questions about it. Since you won't provide predictions of your proposal, I am trying to get one from you. In the frame of the apparatus, is a beam perpendicular to the motion deflected by that motion?
Masanov Posted September 2, 2005 Author Posted September 2, 2005 Dupes, don't be duped! As in water clocks, where water flows into the reservoir with a certain speed, the same is with the LIGHT TIME CLOCK, where light flows into its tube with constant speed. Nevermind, that the reservoir of LTC is filling in slowly then, when viewed from other systems. In all systems the speed with which light flows into this reservoir is the same, acc. to postulates themselves.
Dave Posted September 2, 2005 Posted September 2, 2005 I don't have time for this rubbish. Unless you can come up for a very good reason for re-opening the thread, it's closed until further notice.
Recommended Posts