Light Clocks and Relative Motion

[JohnMnemonic]

I have couple questions about the time, measured by 2 light clocks in a frame, which moves at a constant velocity - where one clock is perpendicular and second one is parallel to the direction of motion:

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html

1. First, the parallel one - according to SR, distance which is being passed by a photon is in this case reduced due to lenght contraction. When the photon is moving in the same direction, as the entire frame, lenght contraction cancels out the increased distance, caused by motion of the clock (as light is "chasing" the mirror) - this is why, the same time can be measured between the "ticks" by the parallel and perpendicular clocks. For now, everything seems to be OK...

Problems begin, when the photon is moving back to the first mirror (left one). Due to motion of the entire clock, mirror and the photon are moving in opposite directions and decrease the distance between them. Even without the lenght contraction, photon which moves in the direction, opposite to the clock's motion, will hit the mirror much faster, than in the case of perpendicular clock. If we will add the lenght contraction, this time gets even shorter...

The only solution, I can think of, is to use the relativity Doppler's effect, instead of Einstein's lenght contraction - what would result in decreased distance in the direction of motion (just like in the case of lenght contraction) and increased distance, for the opposite direction... 

Is there any other explanation?

2. Clock, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion - there seems to be a lot of disagreement between people, as for the behavior of light, which is being emitted perpendiculary to the source's motion. According to officially approved knowledge, motion of the source doesn't affect the velocity and direction of emitted light. We simply can't treat photon as a bullet, which was fired from a speeding car - where perpendicular components of motion are adding. Some people say, that the  motion of ligt source affects the angle, at which photons are emitted, but this can be easily disproven, by extending the path of light inside the moving source. We can for example make a kind of tube, inside which photons will move perpendiculary to the frame's motion, before they will move further into space - similar to the image in the middle, where path of light is not parallel to the orientation of perpendicular source (what is probably incorrect).

Here are some links, where this problem is being discussed:

http://bearsoft.co.uk/LtClk.html

http://milesmathis.com/lc.html

https://books.google.pl/books?id=fRRbDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=light+clock+perpendicular+to+motion&source=bl&ots=jcVmrHt3yn&sig=OstEWET-N_KnGDCZzjMN2LYwf5c&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVkNe4sNXcAhXNmLQKHcgODhkQ6AEwDnoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=light clock perpendicular to motion&f=false

Besides velocities below c are completely relative, so according to the rules of relativity it is completely wrong to tell, that photons emitted from a source, which moves perpendiculary to the direction of propagation, pass a longer distance, than light emitted from a stationary source. All we have to do, is to change the point of view - and source, which was stationary, will become a moving one, extending the path of light, just because of the relativity of motion and without any changes of velocity ... 

Here are 2 movies, which show the same scenario from 2 different perspectives:

I will send 50$ to anyone, who will tell me, for which ball time is flowing slower due to it's velocity... Good luck!

This shows, that the idea of time dilation due to constant velocity is totally inconsistent with the basic laws of relativity and breaks the symmetry of relative velocities.
The only possible solution, which I figured out, is to use (once again) the relativity Doppler's effect, which in this case would decrease the distance in the direction of source's velocity vector, leaving only the perpendicular component of photon's motion. However this would be in disagreeent with SR, which tells that for a moving frame, light is passing longer distance, than for a stationary one, what is causing the time dilation (it doesn't bother me too much, as I don't like the idea of time dilation due to a constant velocity).

Sorry for my english - it's not my native language...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Endy0816]

Your math is probably off.

If you take something simpler like the twin paradox setup and lay out the lengths or times in a triangle, then the angles will match up with when someone accelerates and when someone moved with constant velocity with the lengths/times of the sides.

Easier to see IMO.

[JohnMnemonic]

The point is to explain time dilation in a scenario, where all velocities are constant. Acceleration breaks the symmetry of relative motion and induces a g-force on accelerating body. Try to focus on the ticks of a light clock, which is moving with a constant speed...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

3 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

I have couple questions about the time, measured by 2 light clocks in a frame, which moves at a constant velocity - where one clock is perpendicular and second one is parallel to the direction of motion:

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html

1. First, the parallel one - according to SR, distance which is being passed by a photon is in this case reduced due to lenght contraction. When the photon is moving in the same direction, as the entire frame, lenght contraction cancels out the increased distance, caused by motion of the clock (as light is "chasing" the mirror) - this is why, the same time can be measured between the "ticks" by the parallel and perpendicular clocks. For now, everything seems to be OK...

Problems begin, when the photon is moving back to the first mirror (left one). Due to motion of the entire clock, mirror and the photon are moving in opposite directions and decrease the distance between them. Even without the lenght contraction, photon which moves in the direction, opposite to the clock's motion, will hit the mirror much faster, than in the case of perpendicular clock. If we will add the lenght contraction, this time gets even shorter...

A tick is the round-trip time, not the time it takes to reach the mirror. In the parallel motion case, it takes longer to reach the mirror, and less time to reflect and reach the detector. The sum is what matters. You posted a gif in another thread, around the same time as this post, which demonstrates this.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

A tick is the round-trip time, not the time it takes to reach the mirror. In the parallel motion case, it takes longer to reach the mirror, and less time to reflect and reach the detector. The sum is what matters. You posted a gif in another thread, around the same time as this post, which demonstrates this.

According to SR each frame, which moves with a constant speed can be treated, as stationary one. If we would change the perspective and treat the moving clock, as a stationary one, the symmetry of relative motion and velocities would be completely broken, as from the perspective of a stationary frame, both clocks should be "ticking" at the same rate. It would get even worse, if we would compare the rate of "ticks" with the clocks, which were stationary before and now are moving with the same speed as the clocks on the right side - in such case due to relativity of motion distance passed by photons in the perpendicular left clock would be extended, while the time in which light hits the mirror would be shorter - what would result in higher velocity of c (what is completely incorrect).

There is only one way, to get a valid result for both perspectives - the symmetry of motion and velocity has to be maintained. Sadly, on those animations, such symmetry is non-existent...

In the case of perpendicular clock, I see only one solution - for the photons, the motion component, associated with the direction of moving clock can't be treated as a definitive, but as relative one. In such case, if we change the perspective and treat the right clocks, as stationary, "ticks" of the left perpendicular clock would decrease their rate and time flow for the left clock would appear to slow down. HOWEVER all of those effects have to be relative and not definitive - even if time appear to flow slower in the moving frame, it would in fact flow at the same rate for both frames. This would also mean, that without acceleration or gravity, twin paradox will be obsolete - as both twins would age at the same rate, no matter how fast one of them would travel...

And before you will say, that time dilation due to constant velocity was proved, take into consideration the acceleration, which causes measurable and definitive effects in accelerating frame - it would make sense, that time flow might be affected by the acceleration and not constant velocity...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

The point is to explain time dilation in a scenario, where all velocities are constant. Acceleration breaks the symmetry of relative motion and induces a g-force on accelerating body. Try to focus on the ticks of a light clock, which is moving with a constant speed...

For modeling you can have instantaneous accelerations. Leaves you with only constant velocities.

 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

For modeling you can have instantaneous accelerations. Leaves you with only constant velocities.

Yes. However I want to concentrate on the light clocks, as this was the scenario, which Einstein used, to explain time dilation due to constant velocity. And from the beginning I've noticed, that something's not right with this claim - first it is being said, that all velocities, below c are totally relative and soon after we learn, that the faster something moves, the slower time flows for it... Can't you see here a "small" inconsistency? I can move at 50% of c towards an object, which also moves at 50% of c, but in opposite direction. From my perspective, this object would appear to move at 100% of c - but does it mean, that time completely stopped to flow for the incoming object? The idea, that the faster you move, the slower time is flowing for you, is a total contradiction of the concept of relative motion...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Janus]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

According to SR each frame, which moves with a constant speed can be treated, as stationary one. If we would change the perspective and treat the moving clock, as a stationary one, the symmetry of relative motion and velocities would be completely broken, as from the perspective of a stationary frame, both clocks should be "ticking" at the same rate. It would get even worse, if we would compare the rate of "ticks" with the clocks, which were stationary before and now are moving with the same speed as the clocks on the right side - in such case due to relativity of motion distance passed by photons in the perpendicular left clock would be extended, while the time in which light hits the mirror would be shorter - what would result in higher velocity of c (what is completely incorrect).

There is only one way, to get a valid result for both perspectives - the symmetry of motion and velocity has to be maintained. Sadly, on those animations, such symmetry is non-existent...

 

No. in the case where you are measuring things from the frame in which the clock that is shown moving to the right here is at rest, and the other clock is moving to the right, our new "stationary" clock will measure events just like the "stationary" clock in the animation does. The light travels an equal distance along both "arms" of the clocks at c relative to this frame. 

For the other, clock, which would be measured as moving to the left, the horizontal arm would be length contracted, the light pulse would take less time on the out bound leg and more time on the inbound leg than the vertical pulse takes for each of its legs, but the total round trip times are the same.  Our new "stationary" clock measures the "moving" clock as ticking slow.

You seem to be struggling with the concept of the relativity of simultaneity.  As far as either clock is concerned, the events of the vertical pulse and horizontal pulse of light reaching the far end of each arm is simultaneous for their clock, and not simultaneous for the other clock.

[JohnMnemonic]

3 minutes ago, Janus said:

No. in the case where you are measuring things from the frame in which the clock that is shown moving to the right here is at rest, and the other clock is moving to the right, our new "stationary" clock will measure events just like the "stationary" clock in the animation does. The light travels an equal distance along both "arms" of the clocks at c relative to this frame. 

For the other, clock, which would be measured as moving to the left, the horizontal arm would be length contracted, the light pulse would take less time on the out bound leg and more time on the inbound leg than the vertical pulse takes for each of its legs, but the total round trip times are the same.  Our new "stationary" clock measures the "moving" clock as ticking slow.

You seem to be struggling with the concept of the relativity of simultaneity.  As far as either clock is concerned, the events of the vertical pulse and horizontal pulse of light reaching the far end of each arm is simultaneous for their clock, and not simultaneous for the other clock.

It would make much more sense to me, if the simultaneity would be maintained in all frames - and this can be done, by using the relativity Doppler's effect instead of lenght contraction. Here's a movie, which shows, what I mean:

As you can see, simultaneity of events is here maintained for both: stationary and moving frames...

[Mordred]

You probably do not realize that the relativistic Doppler shift involves the Lorentz transforms so by using Relativistic Doppler you are using length contraction and time dilation of the Lorentz transforms.

[JohnMnemonic]

There's no better workout for a brain, than the theory of relativity. How to define some solid base for a model, which explains all the laws and rules of motion for the whole observable Universe, if for everything, what moves slower than light, velocity, distance or direction of motion are completely illusive? Everything, what we have, is a single value, which remains absolute and constant for anything else - the speed of light. I might be crazy, but this looks, like a nice challenge to me...

Some time ago and just for fun, I started to work on my own model of relativity in 5D environment... I've added a 4'th physical dimension of space - the scale - and resigned from treating the time, as a linear and determined axis. In my concept of relativity, the only point of time, which can be perceived by an observer, is the present moment (or simply real-time). However I also found a way, to visualise the rate of time flow, by using the frequency of cycles in the 4D space (XYZ+scale). My next step, was to connect the scale dimension with the rate of time flow, what became the base of the scale relativity concept (not so long ago I've learned, that there is an actual scientific theory, which deals this subject).

Right now, I'm trying to combine it with SR and GR. However since the beginning, it was obvious for me, that in many aspects, my model doesn't exactly agree with Einstein's theory and in some cases leads to completely different conclusions. Time dilation due to constant velocity is one of those cases...

Another one is the flow of time at 100% of c. According to Einstein, it is impossible to use the light and it's speed in relation to anything else. SR doesn't allow us to use the photons as a reference, or define their "perspective". It might sound funny, but I'm trying to fix it...

I've figured out, that it's possible to use the constant c, to connect the time flow with distances, passed by objects - we can for example associate a single "tick" of a clock, with light-years. All we need to do, is to learn, how long it takes for the light to travel a given distance - and from this point we can define any other velocity. Let's say, that it takes 4 years for the light, to get to a distant celestial body - so all we have to do, is to make a clock, which will "tick" 4 times during our journey to that object. Here's how it looks like:

The only problem with this model, is the fact, that it completely rejects the idea of time dilation due to constant velocity. To make it work, we have to assume, that if from one perspetive, it takes 4 years for the light, to travel through some distance, those 4 years have to pass as well for the traveling light - only this way, we will be able to get valid results for all observers. However, according to SR, light would "experience" this time as 0s (as instant), what is completely against logic, common sense and observed reality. Light simply HAS to experience time, just as any other frame. Each photon has it's own timeline of events (history), which can be modified on purpose. I could for example place a polarization filter on the path of light, soon after it was emitted - if light would travel all this way in 0 seconds, it wouldn't be possible...

This is why, I'm trying to fix this problem right at it's source - and the motion of light clocks seems to be the right spot...

Quote

You probably do not realize that the relativistic Doppler shift involves the Lorentz transforms so by using Relativistic Doppler you are using length contraction and time dilation of the Lorentz transforms.

It doesn't matter... What matters, is the fact, that space and time is being contracted in the direction of motion (in front) and expanded in opposite direction (behind). Lenght contraction works only in one way...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Mordred]

How can time possibly experience time ? Why would you even think time must also experience time this makes no sense

Time is simply a measure of rate of change, it is a property not some substance.

 

 Why do you feel you need to combine SR to GR ? SR is a special set of solutions under GR. They both use the Lorentz transforms the main significant difference is in GR all frames are inertial

for example the Newton approximation [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}[/latex] this GR statement employs the Minkowskii tensor of SR

Edited August 5, 2018 by Mordred

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

How can time possibly experience time

Fixed it already - it should be "light"

Quote

Why do you feel you need to combine SR to GR ? SR is a special set of solutions under GR. They both use the Lorentz transforms the main significant difference is in GR all frames are inertial

I want to combine my model of space, time and scale relativity with those parts, which are officially approved. To be honest, I still didn't get to GR - first I want to deal with SR. But the general idea of such unification is still just in my mind

At this moment, there's only one part of my "theory", which I consider, as 100% functional - it's called magnetohydrodynamics (the only branch of physics, which is NOT a theory)

As for the GR, I have a concept of a model, which can be visualised, by adding water to the rubber sheet analogy - what will connect the potential and kinetic aspects of gravitational fields. Then we will be able to visualise the time-space curvature on the water surface, which will represent the kinetic aspect of gravitational field and turn the potential energy of gravitational field into the kinetic force of pressure (what can be done using the concept of hydrostatic equilibrium)

And then we will be able, to combine GR with MHD and make a model of galaxy in a bowl of water using a pernament magnet, a battery and 2 cables - what should explain, why galaxies are rotating faster, than predicted by GR. And then we won't need the dark matter anymore...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[JohnMnemonic]

Physics is for me just a kind of unusual hobby. Although I don't have any formal education in this field, I've spent last couple years on researching the most important aspects of theoretical and practical physics, beginning from QM, through EM, MHD and plasma physics, to heliophysics, astrophysics, and finishing on GR and SR (which I've started to research only couple months ago). And after such amazing journey through science, I can say without any doubts, that Special Relativity is the most crippled and trashy model, which I saw until now. Comparing to SR, GR seems to work, like a german car - 100 years after it was created, I found only one thing, which bothers me in the mechanics of gravitational fields (I think, that volume of mass/energy distribution is just as important, as it's mass). But the deeper I go into the mechanics of SR, the more issues I notice. More, than 100 years has passed, since Einstein created the theory of SR and up until today, no one from the scientific society didn't try to search for some alternative explanation. 100 years ago, Einstein came to the conclusion, that it is wrong to describe the speed of light in relation to any other velocity, just as it is wrong, to use photons as a frame of reference - and since that time, no one didn't even think about finding any solution to this problem. I'm not a genius - I can't solve sophisticated equations or create a formula for higher dimensions of multi-verse - all I do, is to use simple logic and search for rational solutions to some obvious problems - but somehow I know, that if according to a theory, things make no sense at all, we should try to fix the model, instead accepting the fact, that things don't work, as they should.

I'm not a professional scientist, but it doesn't stop me from thinking about things, which according to mainstream science are wrong. If using the SR, to define the perspective of a photon, leads us to a pile of crap, then maybe we should try to look for a solution, which would at least appear to work... I've spent literally 30 minutes, to think, how things might look like for a photon and how to make the model work for all observers (even those, who move at 100% of c). I know, that there's no chance for a human to reach the speed of light, but this is a THEORETICAL science and theoretically everything is possible (until it won't be disproved). Theoretically I can tell, that since ghosts, demons or angels don't have any rest mass, they can freely move with the speed of light - because why not? There's nothing, what wouldn't allow me to think about a theoretical scenario, which can be further modified, according to my needs. However since I started to research SR, it is the first time, when my attempts of going beyond mainstream theories, were not bombarded with hatred, rejected as heresy, or labelled as BS pseudo-science by the majority of professional scientists - and I'm really thankful for it. Until now, each of my guess or claim, which didn't fit in generally approved narrative, turned the thread into a real battlefield: everyone vs me. Funny, that in most of the cases I was still able to defend my claims....

Anyway, after spending some 30 minutes on thinking about the (incorrect and invalid) perspective of a photon I figured out 5 (yes, five) different solutions. I have no idea, if any of them is the right one, but it's not a sin, to search for the answers - I would even say, that this is what theoretical science is all about. First I came to a basic conclusion, that IF FOR ANYTHING, WHAT IS NOT A PHOTON, LIGHT MOVES WITH CONSTANT VELOCITY, EQUAL TO C, THEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A STATIONARY PHOTON, EVERYTHING, WHAT MOVES SLOWER THAN THE LIGHT, WILL APPEAR TO MOVE AT 100% OF C IN THE DIRECTION, OPPOSITE TO THE DIRECTION OF LIGHT PROPAGATION (according to the basic rules of relative motion). It would mean, that at 100% of c, velocities lower, than c don't exist at all.

Problems start to appear, if we will try to describe the motion of a photon in relation to other photons. Those are the solutions, which I figured out, just by using my biological brain:

- from the perspective of a photon other photons won't be visible or even won't exist at all - what would make sense, since photons don't interact with eachother

- from the perspective of a photon, other photons would appear to move at 100% of c in all directions - this could make some serious problems with the correct order of events in space - and in the difference to Einstein, I treat the order of timeline, as the most important aspect of relativity. The only way, in which 2 events can appear to take place at a different order, is because of different distances between observer and the events: event which took place closer to the observer, will appear to take place as the first one - even if both events were in fact simultaneus.

- from the perspective of a photon other photons will appear to be stationary - however this solution causes so many errors, that it simply has to be wrong

- from the perspective of a photon other photons, which move in the same direction, will appear to be stationary, while all other photons will appear to move at c - it doesn't sound so bad... The only problem is, that paths of photons might appear to be parallel to eachother, but at a longer distance, they might separate from eachother. Besides, there is also gravitational lensing, changes in the density of medium and hundreds of other ways, in which the path of a photon might change in time... So, I think, that this won't work...

- from the perspective of a photon other photons will appear to move at velocities relative to the direction, in which photons are moving in respect to eachother - and this is the solution, which appears to be the valid one (except the first one, which also makes sense). For a photon, everything, what moves slower, than c, will appear to move at 100% of c in the direction opposite to the direction of photon's emiission. In this solution, photons are moving only in relation to eachother... I think, that if we would assume, that at 100% of c, relative motion of photons can appear to be faster than the c itself, this solution would be indeed correct for all frames...

Those are the solutions, which I've figured out, using simple logic, but of course, since we cant accelerate to the speed of light, we have no chance of knowing, if any of them is even close to an objective truth - what doesn't mean, that we have to treat them as a total pseudo-scientific pile of crap. I'm sure, that if some of you would spend couple minutes, thinking about the perspective of a photon, you might also figure out something, what could be taken into consideration, during the creation of a relativity model, which would ACTUALLY WORK...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

However since I started to research SR, it is the first time, when my attempts of going beyond mainstream theories, were not bombarded with hatred, rejected as heresy, or labelled as BS pseudo-science by the majority of professional scientists - and I'm really thankful for it. Until now, each of my guess or claim, which didn't fit in generally approved narrative, turned the thread into a real battlefield: everyone vs me. Funny, that in most of the cases I was still able to defend my claims..

<sigh> There's a Galileo born everyday.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Janus said:

No. in the case where you are measuring things from the frame in which the clock that is shown moving to the right here is at rest, and the other clock is moving to the right, our new "stationary" clock will measure events just like the "stationary" clock in the animation does. The light travels an equal distance along both "arms" of the clocks at c relative to this frame. 

For the other, clock, which would be measured as moving to the left, the horizontal arm would be length contracted, the light pulse would take less time on the out bound leg and more time on the inbound leg than the vertical pulse takes for each of its legs, but the total round trip times are the same.  Our new "stationary" clock measures the "moving" clock as ticking slow.

You seem to be struggling with the concept of the relativity of simultaneity.  As far as either clock is concerned, the events of the vertical pulse and horizontal pulse of light reaching the far end of each arm is simultaneous for their clock, and not simultaneous for the other clock.

Nice explanation Janus, as usual. 

It never ceases to amaze me that after more than a 100 years of SR/GR verification, experimentation and  observable validation, by many many qualified, credentialed experts and young up and coming physicists, that we still have those few that despite not having served the time in this discipline, can have the gaul to stand up bare faced and claim they have invalidated Einstein. 

As an amateur, and no more then an observer in the face of those that claim SR/GR is wrong, I ask myself the following. [1] SR/GR has been put to the test continually for more then a 100 years, and according to the credentialed experts, has passed all tests with flying colours. [2] Why do then so many fellow amateurs, that have claimed to have read up on relativity rather then study it, then assume the mantle of an expert and on equal footing with those that have put in many years of hard yards in studying it. then claim that it is wrong. [3] If these amateurs are so sure SR/GR is wrong, why do they not write up a paper for professional peer review? [4] Relativity has passed essentially every single test to which it has been put for the past 100 years It has literally been tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators, and such, so why should/can any reasonable thinking person accept the rhetoric and claims of an "self proclaimed" amateur? [5] While GR is incomplete, it is not wrong when applied within its broad near all encompassing fields of applicability. [5] In recent times GR has been further put to the test and passed with flying colours, with the discovery of gravitational radiation. [6] SR of course is simply a subset or special case of GR, as even this old amateur knows. [7] When finally science does formulate/discover a more encompassing theory [a QGT] that can be validated as well as GR, it will almost certainly be by some professional, well versed in the finer points of SR/GR, as one of the criteria of any new scientific theory, is first know perfectly the incumbent theory which you are hoping to replace.

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Physics is for me just a kind of unusual hobby. Although I don't have any formal education in this field,  

Likewise science in general for me. And likewise I also do not have any formal education. But I'm not disputing something that has already run the gauntlet so to speak and passed all tests with flying colours. So I say to you, first get some formal education and know inside out, the theory you are trying to invalidate.

Quote

I notice. More, than 100 years has passed, since Einstein created the theory of SR and up until today, no one from the scientific society didn't try to search for some alternative explanation.

That is simply wrong and a obviously deceitful claim to make. SR and the more encompassing GR, are put to the test everyday in particle accelerators and many other applications.

Quote

100 years ago, Einstein came to the conclusion, that it is wrong to describe the speed of light in relation to any other velocity, just as it is wrong, to use photons as a frame of reference - and since that time, no one didn't even think about finding any solution to this problem. I'm not a genius - I can't solve sophisticated equations or create a formula for higher dimensions of multi-verse - all I do, is to use simple logic and search for rational solutions to some obvious problems - but somehow I know, that if according to a theory, things make no sense at all, we should try to fix the model, instead accepting the fact, that things don't work, as they should.

 Again claiming no one has ever searched finding any solution is deceitfully wrong. I'm also no genius and probably further down the genius ladder then you are, but I'm not burdened with delusions of grandeur and fooling myself that I am able to invalidate that which has been continually validated for more then a 100 years. 

Quote

I'm not a professional scientist, but it doesn't stop me from thinking about things, which according to mainstream science are wrong.

Nothing wrong in thinking certainly, as long as your thinking and self proclaimed logic is not clouded by any agenda and/or affliction.

Quote

If using the SR, to define the perspective of a photon, leads us to a pile of crap, then maybe we should try to look for a solution,

Even as an amateur lower on the genius ladder then yourself, I do know that putting yourself in the frame of reference of a photon is impossible because a photon is never at rest so no such frame exists. 

Quote

However since I started to research SR, it is the first time, when my attempts of going beyond mainstream theories, were not bombarded with hatred, rejected as heresy, or labelled as BS pseudo-science by the majority of professional scientists

I see you mention ghosts, angels etc...Do you believe in such mythical entities? And of course you are mistaking legitimate criticism and pointing out of errors in your thinking for this imaginary emotional hatred claim.

Quote

There's nothing, what wouldn't allow me to think about a theoretical scenario, which can be further modified, according to my needs. However since I started to research SR, it is the first time, when my attempts of going beyond mainstream theories, were not bombarded with hatred, rejected as heresy, or labelled as BS pseudo-science by the majority of professional scientists - and I'm really thankful for it. Until now, each of my guess or claim, which didn't fit in generally approved narrative, turned the thread into a real battlefield: everyone vs me. Funny, that in most of the cases I was still able to defend my claims....

So, playing the victim card I see, rather then accept the reasonings/explantions and pointing out of the errors you have made. And of course if you are certain that you have defended your claims and shown they are correct, then why not do the right and proper thing for humanity as a whole and write up a scientific paper for professional peer review.

 

I believe as an amateur I have said enough and the mention of ghosts etc has now enlightened me to some probable cause and reason for the absurd incorrect and invalidated claims you have made. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by beecee

[JohnMnemonic]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

As an amateur, and no more then an observer in the face of those that claim SR/GR is wrong, I ask myself the following. [1] SR/GR has been put to the test continually for more then a 100 years, and according to the credentialed experts, has passed all tests with flying colours. [2] Why do then so many fellow amateurs, that have claimed to have read up on relativity rather then study it, then assume the mantle of an expert and on equal footing with those that have put in many years of hard yards in studying it. then claim that it is wrong. [3] If these amateurs are so sure SR/GR is wrong, why do they not write up a paper for professional peer review? [4] Relativity has passed essentially every single test to which it has been put for the past 100 years It has literally been tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators, and such, so why should/can any reasonable thinking person accept the rhetoric and claims of an "self proclaimed" amateur? [5] While GR is incomplete, it is not wrong when applied within its broad near all encompassing fields of applicability. [5] In recent times GR has been further put to the test and passed with flying colours, with the discovery of gravitational radiation. [6] SR of course is simply a subset or special case of GR, as even this old amateur knows. [7] When finally science does formulate/discover a more encompassing theory [a QGT] that can be validated as well as GR, it will almost certainly be by some professional, well versed in the finer points of SR/GR, as one of the criteria of any new scientific theory, is first know perfectly the incumbent theory which you are hoping to replace.

Problem is, that there's no way, to confirms a big part of SR, as it deals with velocities, which we won't be able to reach with our current technology. Besides a single result can be explained in many different ways... Tell me, how we might check, if SR is correct in the case of non-existent time at 100% of c? According to Einstein, photons don't experience any time and everything happens instantly for them. I won't accept such statement, if it won't be confirmed by observation...

Not to mention, that I don't have (almost) nothing against GR...

Quote

That is simply wrong and a obviously deceitful claim to make. SR and the more encompassing GR, are put to the test everyday in particle accelerators and many other applications.

Ohh, then show me some official attempts to make photon a valid point of reference

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Janus said:

You seem to be struggling with the concept of the relativity of simultaneity.  As far as either clock is concerned, the events of the vertical pulse and horizontal pulse of light reaching the far end of each arm is simultaneous for their clock, and not simultaneous for the other clock.

etc

 

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

Nice explanation Janus, as usual. 

Yes indeed.

But Janus, please you are wearing out the +1 clicker on my mouse.

 

I would just like to add what Mordred hinted at.

John, I think you are confusing reference frames with your light clocks.

If they are mounted in the moving frame (as you state) they do not experience length contraction in relation to that frame.

Observers external to that frame observe the length ocntraction/ time dilation.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Nothing wrong in thinking certainly, as long as your thinking and self proclaimed logic is not clouded by any agenda and/or affliction.

Logic and knowledge are my only weapons

[beecee]

1 minute ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Problem is, that there's no way, to confirms a big part of SR, as it deals with velocities, which we won't be able to reach with our current technology. Besides a single result can be explained in many different ways... Tell me, how we might check, if SR is correct in the case of non-existent time at 100% of c? According to Einstein, photons don't experience any time and everything happens instantly for them. I won't accept such statement, if it won't be confirmed by observation...

Not to mention, that I don't have (almost) nothing against GR...

You never heard of particle accelerators? And obviously confirmation of GR [completely] would mean the confirmation [many thousands of times] of SR, since SR is simply a subset or special case of GR.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Even as an amateur lower on the genius ladder then yourself, I do know that putting yourself in the frame of reference of a photon is impossible because a photon is never at rest so no such frame exists. 

Nothing in the Universe is at rest - but everything, what moves at a constant velocity can be treated as a stationary observer. Photons move always at c, so they should work just fine as a point of reference

[beecee]

1 minute ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Logic and knowledge are my only weapons

And as long as your self proclaimed knowledge and logic are clouded with afflictions and/or agendas, they will prove to be faulty.

1 minute ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Nothing in the Universe is at rest - but everything, what moves at a constant velocity can be treated as a stationary observer. Photons move always at c, so they should work just fine as a point of reference

Again photons are confined to one speed in a vacuum. Time does not pass for a photon and obtaining speed "c" for anything with mass is simply a no go.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

I see you mention ghosts, angels etc...Do you believe in such mythical entities? And of course you are mistaking legitimate criticism and pointing out of errors in your thinking for this imaginary emotional hatred claim.

Science is not about beliefs, but about making assumptions and confronting them with reality. I don't believe in time travel - does it mean, that grandfather paradox is a great waste of time? Not to mention, that some famous scientists used such mythical entities in their thought experiments - ever heard about Maxwell's Demon?

Quote

I believe as an amateur I have said enough and the mention of ghosts etc has now enlightened me to some probable cause and reason for the absurd incorrect and invalidated claims you have made. 

Do you know, what is a thought experiment? I don't want to prove that ghosts or angels exists - I just wanted to use a non-material observer, which would be able to move at c. If you don't like ghosts, then just make up something/someone else - you can call it/him Albert, if you want

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

I would just like to add what Mordred hinted at.

John, I think you are confusing reference frames with your light clocks.

If they are mounted in the moving frame (as you state) they do not experience length contraction in relation to that frame.

Observers external to that frame observe the length ocntraction/ time dilation.

Thanx! I know, that lenght contraction can be observed only by a stationary observer

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Science is not about beliefs, but about making assumptions and confronting them with reality. I don't believe in time travel - does it mean, that grandfather paradox is a great waste of time? Not to mention, that some famous scientists used such mythical entities in their thought experiments - ever heard about Maxwell's Demon?

You say you don't "believe"in time travel, and then claim science is not about beliefs? Time travel is certainly possible at least forward and that is allowed for in relativity. And of course my question was about your beliefs or otherwise in demons, ghosts etc, simply because I saw it as a possible reason for your wayward and incorrect thinking and assumptions.

But hey! Again if you believe you have the necessary evidence to show SR and consequently GR is wrong, then write up a paper for professional peer review.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

You never heard of particle accelerators? And obviously confirmation of GR [completely] would mean the confirmation [many thousands of times] of SR, since SR is simply a subset or special case of GR.

Well, since hadrons, move at extremely high velocities and are still able to experience time, it doesn't confirm, but rather denies the lack of time flow at 100% of c

Quote

You say you don't "believe"in time travel, and then claim science is not about beliefs? Time travel is certainly possible at least forward and that is allowed for in relativity. And of course my question was about your beliefs or otherwise in demons, ghosts etc, simply because I saw it as a possible reason for your wayward and incorrect thinking and assumptions.

But hey! Again if you believe you have the necessary evidence to show SR and consequently GR is wrong, then write up a paper for professional peer review.

 

Well, until no one won't travel to the past and kill his own grandfather, the idea of time travel is just as scientifically valid, as an angel, which is moving at the speed of light

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic