Relativity Question

[swansont]

Your anger and arrogance are not substitutes for reason. On the contrary they are signs of defeat. However you forget that we are not contesting; we are debating and learning. But we are not schoolchildren to say yes to everything you say. In case you find us unworthy, decency demands that you ignore us rather than be intemperate.

 

It is amply proven and stated even by an illustrious persons like Bertrand Russell and Richard Feynman that mathematics is just a tool for calculations. It cannot replace concepts.

 

I request you not to get offended by our expressions. Because opinions of expert like you are valuable to us, but if you wish to gag us then I think that would be unreasonable.

 

!

Moderator Note

Nobody has expressed anger or shown offense. Nobody has attempted to gag you. Any perceived arrogance is likely because the several people explaining relativity actually understand it and you clearly do not. The accusations are a distraction, though, so stop it. Discuss relativity and related topics. You have to back your position up with more than observations of what does and doesn't make sense to you: you need evidence to support a contrary position.

 

"Decency" does not demand that we quietly acquiesce to nonsense. This is science, and a discussion board on the internet, and you are demonstrably wrong. Those factors beg for rebuttal. If you want to spout garbage without fear of contradiction then it means you have confused this site with a personal blog.

[DrRocket]

 

So far as ability of mathematics to explain everything, I would request you to explain me what meaning Maxwell's wave equations convey in absence of ether.

 

 

 

Maxwell's equations mean exactly what they say, in any inertial reference frame, without need for reference to any "ether". It is the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations and the fact that light is nothing more and nothing less than an electromagnetic wave that provide profound evidence for special relativity.

 

Mathematics does not "explain everything". Mathematics provides the framework whereby physics explains those things that we do currently understand. That does not yet encompass everything. It does include quite a lot, and that lot is accessible only to those who understand the language.

[tar]

Janus,

 

The same number. Though the rate will vary as the trip progresses. At 0.866c, she will see the tick rate go from 3.73 the pulsar source rate to .5 as she's goes from Earth to midpoint and from .5 to 0.268 as she travels from midpoint to Alpha C. Even located at 10,000 light years perpendicular to the flight path there will be a Doppler shift effect.

 

If she sees half or a quarter of the pulses, in half the time (having only experienced 5 years during the 10 year trip,) how does that add up to the same number of pulses?

 

Vilas,

 

I am not doubting the physics, or the math.

 

I guess I am a lousy teammate, 'cause I will probably leave you hanging on a few of your points.

 

I think they are correct when they say we are doing ourselves a disservice by not doing the math.

 

But I am not sure.

 

I do still hang on to common sense, at the same time as I accept the observations, and continue to look for, and ask for the explanations that do not require me to do partial differential equations. I am not sure that this means I can never see it correctly. Perhaps it does. But considering that I have already philosophically come to the understanding that my model, is just that, a model, I am hoping that I can readily incorporate anything that is found to be true into it with ease.

 

Even though my model includes matter that is made up of tiny atoms and particles so that I know everything I am looking at is mostly empty space, I still pretty much ignore that fact, and pour my soda into a glass, with the understanding, that none-the-less, the soda won't leak though the spaces.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Besides, reality was still real for everybody that lived in the 19th century. And they did OK without knowing they were taking a geodesic path. In fact, I have no reason to believe that Maxwell didn't know. He just didn't describe it that way.

 

Sure we have discovered a lot in the last 150 years, and sure, it was done primarily by people that could do the math. But that does not mean I cannot comprehend their discoveries. And it does not mean that I cannot question something that does not make sense to me.

 

"photon lag" puts what is currently happening on Alpha Centuri forever 4.5 years from us ever knowing.

 

I say, according to my model, that the background microwave radiation, redshifted 1000 times, showing us that portion of the universe that at the time of the photon release was in a universe that had just become transparent, is now a portion of the universe that has had 13.7billion years to evolve and may be sort of like here and now, with galaxies and strings of galaxies. I don't think I am countering observation or physics to come to that conclusion. Just using common sense.

 

Janus,

 

Or are you saying she sees it pulsing twice as fast, in half the time?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Janus,

 

Would that also mean the frequency of light she saw it pulsing in would be double what we see it pulsing in?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited July 26, 2011 by tar

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

SSDS content moved to its own thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58770-more-relativity-questions/

[Janus]

Janus,

 

 

 

If she sees half or a quarter of the pulses, in half the time (having only experienced 5 years during the 10 year trip,) how does that add up to the same number of pulses?

First off, I like to apologize for an error in my numbers. There are two formulas that can be used to determine the Doppler shift in this situation. One uses the actual angle between source and observer and the other uses the angle as seen by the observer, due to aberration. I accidentally used the angle for one in the formula for the other. The correct values hover much closer to 2 throughout the whole trip.

 

That being said, My original numbers still gave a a final count value for the pulses counted on the trip that equaled the count made at home. the numbers I gave were for 1 leg of the trip. Thus while traveling from Earth to midpoint (midpoint being where the perpendicular line form the pulsar crosses the path of the ship) she would see the flash rate that was as high as 3.73, it wasn't until she actually reached Alpha C that the rate drops to 0.28. So for half the trip shes sees the flashes at a high rate and half at a low rate. When you summed up the flashes seen in both halves you got a number that matches the number counted on Earth.

 

Since this final result was what I expected, I didn't bother to recheck my steps, which is why I didn't realize my mistake until later when something began to gnaw at the back of my head and I went back to double check.

 

So to recap, she will see the pulse rate at just a hair over 2 for half a leg and just a hair under 2 fro half a leg. IOW, If Earth counts 1 flash per sec for 10 yrs, she will count ~2 flashes per sec for 5 yrs and end up counting the same number of flashes.

 

Again, I apologize for any confusion my error may have caused.

 

 

 

 

Besides, reality was still real for everybody that lived in the 19th century. And they did OK without knowing they were taking a geodesic path. In fact, I have no reason to believe that Maxwell didn't know. He just didn't describe it that way.

 

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Over a small enough region, a segment of a circle looks like a straight line. But if you extrapolate out that section treating it as a straight line, you will deviate from the actual curve of the circle. This is the equivalent of Physics in the 19th century. At the speeds and energies they were able to study, time and space appeared constant. But then some experiments began to give results that were not as predicted. What Einstein showed was that the results of these experiments made sense if you abandoned the idea that time and space were constant. ( in essence, he was saying that the line that appeared straight at normal energies and speeds was in fact a segment of a curve, and when extrapolated to high energies and speeds lead to quite different consequences than expected if you considered it straight.

 

Sure we have discovered a lot in the last 150 years, and sure, it was done primarily by people that could do the math. But that does not mean I cannot comprehend their discoveries. And it does not mean that I cannot question something that does not make sense to me.

 

 

But you have to accept the possibility that the "not making sense to you" may be your fault and not the fault of the concepts. At the very start of this thread I told you that in order for Relativity to make sense for you, you would have to abandon some notions you likely had about time and space. So far, you have been reluctant to do so.

[tar]

Janus,

 

I accept.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Consider the notions abandoned.

[J.C.MacSwell]

That being said, My original numbers still gave a a final count value for the pulses counted on the trip that equaled the count made at home. the numbers I gave were for 1 leg of the trip. Thus while traveling from Earth to midpoint (midpoint being where the perpendicular line form the pulsar crosses the path of the ship) she would see the flash rate that was as high as 3.73, it wasn't until she actually reached Alpha C that the rate drops to 0.28. So for half the trip shes sees the flashes at a high rate and half at a low rate. When you summed up the flashes seen in both halves you got a number that matches the number counted on Earth.

 

Since this final result was what I expected, I didn't bother to recheck my steps, which is why I didn't realize my mistake until later when something began to gnaw at the back of my head and I went back to double check.

 

So to recap, she will see the pulse rate at just a hair over 2 for half a leg and just a hair under 2 fro half a leg. IOW, If Earth counts 1 flash per sec for 10 yrs, she will count ~2 flashes per sec for 5 yrs and end up counting the same number of flashes.

 

 

 

Hi Janus

 

I often don't understand it until I have it clear in my head from more than one frame and I'm not there yet but:

 

At what point is it as high as 3.73?

 

Past 2am here so the brain is a little foggy, but I see it as very close to 2 as described in your last line and never much above. Except with an acceleration involved I don't see it and with none specifically defined even at the turn around I don't see a point where it is 3.73.

 

Thanks

JC

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

So...you think the light is attracted by gravity in such a way that even though it is not heading straight up, it turns around and goes back in the direction it came?

 

The color of the light is what weighs not the brightness of the light.

 

The question continued in "redshift"

Edited July 29, 2011 by Victor Elias Espinoza G.

[swansont]

The color of the light is what weighs not the brightness of the light.

 

The question continued in "redshift"

!

Moderator Note

Advertising the discussion of your pet theory in other threads is not permitted. Please review the rules, and stay on-topic.

 

Also, that sentence does not appear in the post you are quoting. I hope this is simply a copy/paste error