I have figured out how Special Relativity does its tricks and I have designed
a paradox to eliminate those tricks and to illustrate the simple fault of SR.

I assume most everyone is aware of the fact that the Apollo astronauts
left a prism/reflector on the moon. Scientist on Earth can bounce a laser
beam off the reflector to time the speed of light, the timed travel of light
to the reflector and back to Earth while the moon is a know distance away,
an mean distance of 384,400 km.
My paradox begins with the same principle, a laser on Earth firing a beam
at a target a known distance away and recording the travel time on a stopwatch. But this time the prism/reflector is attached to the side of a
spacecraft traveling overhead in a trajectory 90 degrees perpendicular to
the Earth based laser. The laser fires the beam straight up to hit the traveling
spacecraft/reflector at a 90 degree angle to its flight path, with sufficent lead
to hit the spacecraft of course. The spacecraft is traveling at .866c relative to the Earth. Like shooting at a duck flying overhead, a lead is needed.
At the time the laser beam hits the spacecraft/reflector, they are separated
by 299,792,458 meters according to the Earth based observer. Simple, the
laser beam travels straight up, reflects off the spacecraft/reflector and back
to Earth where it is timed. Two seconds, of course. We also have an observer
on the spacecraft with a stopwatch timing the travel of the laser beam from
the Earth to his spacecraft and back to Earth. If we
use Newtonian physics, the spacecraft would be in motion in its frame of
reference and the beam would take the same straight up and down path
as seen from Earth. Two seconds travel time again. If we use Special Relativistic physics, the spacecraft observer would assume the position of
rest in his frame of reference and the Earth/laser would be in motion. The
laser beam would then travel a longer path from the moving Earth frame to
his rest frame and back to the moving Earth-based laser. The spacecraft
observer would record four seconds on his stopwatch for the travel time
of the beam. Ahh, you may ask, how did the spacecraft observer see the
laser in transit? A colored beam? Or, you could place flashers on the laser
apparatus, to flash when the beam was fired and again when it returned.
Using a gamma of .5 for the spacecraft velocity of .866c, the recorded time
on the stopwatch of the spacecraft observer would be ... two seconds again.
Moving clocks DO NOT run slow. Special Relativity is based on illusions. Can
you find a flaw in this paradox?

There's no radial velocity at all in your thought experiment around the time of the laser being fired, so neither length contraction nor time dilation apply. There's no paradox.

- Warren

The beam travel is not instantaneous, chroot. It takes two seconds, during which elapsed time the Earth has traveled at a velocity of .886c, according to Special
Relativity. The beam has to make the round trip.

I have figured out how Special Relativity does its tricks and I have designed
a paradox to eliminate those tricks and to illustrate the simple fault of SR.

I assume most everyone is aware of the fact that the Apollo astronauts
left a prism/reflector on the moon. Scientist on Earth can bounce a laser
beam off the reflector to time the speed of light, the timed travel of light
to the reflector and back to Earth while the moon is a know distance away,
an mean distance of 384,400 km.
My paradox begins with the same principle, a laser on Earth firing a beam
at a target a known distance away and recording the travel time on a stopwatch. But this time the prism/reflector is attached to the side of a
spacecraft traveling overhead in a trajectory 90 degrees perpendicular to
the Earth based laser. The laser fires the beam straight up to hit the traveling
spacecraft/reflector at a 90 degree angle to its flight path, with sufficent lead
to hit the spacecraft of course. The spacecraft is traveling at .866c relative to the Earth. Like shooting at a duck flying overhead, a lead is needed.
At the time the laser beam hits the spacecraft/reflector, they are separated
by 299,792,458 meters according to the Earth based observer. Simple, the
laser beam travels straight up, reflects off the spacecraft/reflector and back
to Earth where it is timed. Two seconds, of course. We also have an observer
on the spacecraft with a stopwatch timing the travel of the laser beam from
the Earth to his spacecraft and back to Earth. If we
use Newtonian physics, the spacecraft would be in motion in its frame of
reference and the beam would take the same straight up and down path
as seen from Earth. Two seconds travel time again. If we use Special Relativistic physics, the spacecraft observer would assume the position of
rest in his frame of reference and the Earth/laser would be in motion. The
laser beam would then travel a longer path from the moving Earth frame to
his rest frame and back to the moving Earth-based laser. The spacecraft
observer would record four seconds on his stopwatch for the travel time
of the beam. Ahh, you may ask, how did the spacecraft observer see the
laser in transit? A colored beam? Or, you could place flashers on the laser
apparatus, to flash when the beam was fired and again when it returned.
Using a gamma of .5 for the spacecraft velocity of .866c, the recorded time
on the stopwatch of the spacecraft observer would be ... two seconds again.
Moving clocks DO NOT run slow. Special Relativity is based on illusions. Can
you find a flaw in this paradox?

I am confused. In the middle of your post you say the space ship observer "would record four seconds on his stopwatch. . .", and later your say "....two seconds again." Can you clear me up on this?

Thnx.

SR puts the Earth/laser apparatus in motion and the spacecraft observer in the rest frame. Timing the laser beam in its THEN 'V' shaped path, it would take 4 seconds
of travel time by watching the beam in flight itself. However, if 'flashing lights' (a clock,
more or less) on the Earth were viewed, Special Relativity would dilate the time by a
gamma of .5 for a velocity of .866c. He would then record two seconds on his own
clock and as seen passing on the Earth based 'flashing light/clock'. SR is kind of complicated and it is easy to get lost in its manipulations of frames. It hides its flaws
in this manner.

Gotcha.
When we use the postulate of liight that states that the light motion is independent of the motion of the source then it would seem that all observers would see a single trajectory for the reason that the earth frame, assumed at rest, "really" would transmit and reflect the light in a single trajectory. If the earth frame were in actual motion the return trajectory would still use the same trajectory for the return path. If you had a mist of light sensitive spray that could maintain a record of the trajectory of light emitted from an actual moving earth frame, would you not now see a series of straightlines where each line is the trajectory of each up/down pair?

Hey, did I just manufacture an ersatz ether, or not?

I recognize the distorted view of relativity that will make up any silly physical condition to justify the theory, but the obvious needs correcting as soon as it is uttered.

There is an analogy here with Michelson-Morely experiments that also use the triangular path for the trajectory of the light directed transverse to the assumed direction of motion. If the reflections from the mirror were truly perpendicular the up beam would follow the same traejctory as the down trajectory, but there is the insipient verbage that always accompanies the description of the experiment to the effect that the moving frame "drags the photon along with the motion of the interferometer". If this occured the frame would impose a componenet of velocity parallel to the motion of the frame onto the transverse directed beam which would then move faster than C.

Either the postulate of light declaring the independence of the motion of light from the source opf the light is true, or it isn't. The last I have heard is this postulate is crucial to the substantive integrity of SR. Perhaps, buried somewhere in the literature of SR there is a postulate that says that any physical or theoretical construct that would disprove the theory of relativity may be discarded and ignored at the consideration of the theorist observing the threat to SR thepry.

The beam travel is not instantaneous, chroot. It takes two seconds, during which elapsed time the Earth has traveled at a velocity of .886c, according to Special
Relativity. The beam has to make the round trip.

2inquisitive:

If a laser, or flashlight is directed in some direction observers viewing the beam from anywhere (well if they ae close enough) can see the beam, its direction and can locate the source.

"Special Relativity predicts moving clocks run slow."

Note that this is a simplification of what SR says, and can be ambiguous. It is easy to draw incorrect conclusions if you're not fully aware of exactly where this prediction came from.

Here is a more precise statement of what SR says about time dilation.
It can be used to deduce that moving clocks run fast, but is less ambiguous.

If two events occur in the same place in some reference frame, the time between those events will be longer in any other reference frame.



In 2inquisitive's scenario, the events of interest are:
1) The laser beam leaving Earth
2) The laser beam reflecting off the ship
3) The laser beam returning to Earth again

And the frames of interest are:
1) The Earth frame (spaceship is moving)
2) The spaceshipframe (Earth is moving)


Now, the important question is: Which of these events (if any) are in the same place in a frame of interest.
The answer is clear:
Events 1) and 3) are in the same place in Earth's frame.

Now, from the time dilation principle stated above, it is clear that relativity predicts that the time between these two events (the round trip travel time of the laser) will be shortest in Earth's frame, and longer in the spaceship frame - which matches the numbers in the scenario, and there is no paradox.

So, why does there seem to be a paradox? Do spaceship clocks run slow in Earth's frame or not?

Yes, spaceship clocks do run slow in Earth's frame. However, the scenario is not set up to test that. This scenario is testing the reverse - it is testing how Earth clocks run in the spaceship frame.

To test how spaceship clocks run in Earth's frame, it is necessary to time from Earth the interval between two events that are in the same place in the spaceship frame - not the other way around.

For those who aren't sure of the validity of 2inquisitive's scenario and numbers, here's a diagram of what happens in the spaceship's frame:
<img src=/attachment.php?attachmentid=3401&stc=1">

Note that in the spaceship frame, the Earth is moving past the ship at a velocity of 0.866c

So, since the spaceship observer timed the actual colored beam of the laser to take
4 seconds in his frame of reference during the extended 'V' shaped travels, he will
see the flashing lights/clock on the laser apparatus as taking EIGHT seconds between
the flashes as that event is in a different frame of reference?

I thought we were RECORDING how clocks run in EACH frame. Since stopwatches were used, it is easy to compare them after the test without having to worry about a
non-inertial frame which could skew the timed results on the stopwatches. True?

So, since the spaceship observer timed the actual colored beam of the laser to take 4 seconds in his frame of reference during the extended 'V' shaped travels, he will see the flashing lights/clock on the laser apparatus as taking EIGHT seconds between the flashes as that event is in a different frame of reference?
No. The spaceship observer times the interval inthe spaceship between the laser leaving and the laser arriving. That interval is 4 seconds.

I thought we were RECORDING how clocks run in EACH frame. Since stopwatches were used, it is easy to compare them after the test without having to worry about a non-inertial frame which could skew the timed results on the stopwatches. True?

What are the stopwatches timing?
It seems to me that they are timing the interval between two events (laser leaving, laser returning).

That interval is the only thing being recorded in your scenario.

quote:

"If two events occur in the same place in some reference frame, the time between those events will be longer in any other reference frame."
================================================== ==============

By the way, what does 'same place' mean? Anywhere in the whole reference frame
or at exactly the SAME PLACE. Aren't the collectors (antennas?) that are used to
receive the returned laser beam off to the side of the laser apparatus itself, such as
those used in laserbeam-to-moon and back timings?

The same place means the same spatial coordinates in that reference frame. Eg in the reference frame of Earth's surface, it means the same latitude, longitude, and altitude.

I think that in laser range finders, the detector is close enough to the laser that you can consider them to be in the same place without affecting the precision of the reult by a large amount.

It does introduce an error factor (which could be calculated and allowed for if required), but I think that the factor would be very small.

What are the stopwatches timing?
It seems to me that they are timing the interval between two events (laser leaving, laser returning).

That interval is the only thing being recorded in your scenario.

Yes, and for the speed of light to be constant in BOTH frames it should
record two seconds in each frame. The actual distance the light beam
traveled was exactly 599,584,916 in each frame. There were no contracted distances or elongated paths in either frame. The longer path the laser beam
traveled in the spaceship frame was an illusion caused by placing the Earth
in a moving frame of reference, Special Relativity's trick. The beam would
actually travel straight up and down, the same distance, in true frames of
reference. Like in the Lorentz contractions, distance is contracted in the
direction of travel only, but what happens to the clock? Is time contracted
only in the direction of travel? What happens when you look out a side window? Does the ticking rate speed up to keep the speed of light constant?
Or if it ticks the same in all directions, how can distances not be contracted
to the side also to keep the speed of light constant? Just as the constant
speed of light defines the meter and the second, the meter and the second
defines the speed of light. Can't change the clock tick rate without also
changing the meter length to correspond or the speed of light changes.
EDIT: I failed to mention that Lorentz scenario would apply to the MOVING
frame of reference, not the rest frame.

Yes, and for the speed of light to be constant in BOTH frames it should record two seconds in each frame. The actual distance the light beam
traveled was exactly 599,584,916 in each frame. There were no contracted distances or elongated paths in either frame. The longer path the laser beam
traveled in the spaceship frame was an illusion caused by placing the Earth
in a moving frame of reference
Right, we're stuck on an underlying premise, that of the validity of the concept of a reference frame.

2inquisitive, are you sure the laser really went straight up and down?
Did the Earth not spin on its axis during the laser's transit?
Did the Earth not move through space around the Sun during the laser's transit?
Did the whole solar system not move through space around the galaxy during the laser's transit?
Did the whole galaxy not move through space toward the Virgo supercluster?


Do you think that the apparent straight-up-and-down path is an illusion caused by placing the Earth in a stationary frame of reference?

Note that the postulate of SR that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames means equating the speed of light to be the quotient of the distance light travels in that reference frame (the distance you suggest is illusory) divided by the transit time in that reference frame.

If you deny that the distance is real, then you are immediately diverging from special relativity. Thought experiments at that point are useless, because you are working with a different model to those you're arguing with.

So...
Do you understand that I think that the elongated light path in the spaceship's frame is just as real as the back-and-forth path in the Earth's frame?

Would you like to engage in a debate on whether or not distance measurements are valid in only one frame?

If you don't want to debate that point, then I think we just have to accept that we disagree, end the thread here.

Is time contracted only in the direction of travel? What happens when you look out a side window? Does the ticking rate speed up to keep the speed of light constant?
Time doesn't have a spatial direction.
Looking out the side window doesn't change the clock's motion, or lack of it.

I think you need to start from this statement:
"If two events occur in the same place in some reference frame, the time between those events will be longer in any other reference frame"
And work from there to determine what relativity predicts for moving clocks.
That might help to clear up what I suspect are misconceptions about relativity's predictions.

I bet I can hit more ducks than you, Pete. hehe So, we are left with the conclusion
that moving clocks can run fast or slow, they just can't run the same as the clock
at the start of the exercise and distances can be shortened or lengthened, but in
only the direction of movement or any direction? I guess any direction, or it would
not have been possible to lengthen the travel of the laser beam in this exercise. The
laser beam was at a 90 degree angle to the direction of travel (Earth or spaceship).
Exactly what do the Lorentz contractions say again?
Edit: Does Special Relativity have a name for this lengthening of distance
to the side, like Lorentz Expansions or something?

Oh, and by the way, Pete, while that spaceship clock was running FAST, were the
distances in the direction of travel Lorentz Expanded also? Or did the clock have a different tick rate in the direction of travel than it did to the side?

The change in path length has nothing to do with Lorentz contraction.

You don't even need special relativity to understand it - it's a simple effect of Galilean relativity.

Here is another example of the same effect:
When I walk across my office, how far have I moved? About 2 meters?
But from the point of view of an observer hovering in space over the Earth, wathcing the Earth turn underneath, I moved about a kilometer (assuming it took me about 3 seconds).

Which is correct?
Did I move 2 metres, or 1000 metres?

Would you like to engage in a debate on whether or not distance measurements are valid in only one frame?

If you don't want to debate that point, then I think we just have to accept that we disagree, and end the thread here.

quote:
"You don't even need special relativity to understand it - it's a simple effect of Galilean relativity."
================================================== =============

Are you now saying you believe Galilean Relativity is correct? If not, why quote it to
support an arguement? I believe in Newtonian mechanics, myself.

quote:
Here is another example of the same effect:
When I walk across my office, how far have I moved? About 2 meters?
But from the point of view of an observer hovering in space over the Earth, wathcing the Earth turn underneath, I moved about a kilometer (assuming it took me about 3 seconds)."
================================================== ==============

Not a good analogy, Pete. To demonstrate the same effect, the traveler in space should be moving and you should be seated at your desk, not moving. Then the
traveler in space can tell you how fast you are moving and how fast your watch runs.
He will also tell you that you and the guy in the office across the street cannot agree
on when a wreck occurs on the street halfway between the two of you. He will also
tell you that your watch changes tick rates when you face one direction and then
turn 90 degrees. He will tell you that your office is no longer square, but contracted
in one direction. But that is just his distorted view, isn't it? He has got everything wrong, hasn't he? Just because the traveler flies overhead, your world doesn't change.
Tell him he is wrong and all that stuff is happening to HIM. Or is it? Which is reality?
Of course, BOTH are! And his clock is running FAST. Glad we got that all straightened
out.

Are you now saying you believe Galilean Relativity is correct?
It's correct enough for all practical purposes, just like Newtonian mechanics.
Don't forget that all predictions of Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean relativity in their domain of applicability must also be predicitons of Einstein's relativity in that domain.

quote:
Here is another example of the same effect:
When I walk across my office, how far have I moved? About 2 meters?
But from the point of view of an observer hovering in space over the Earth, wathcing the Earth turn underneath, I moved about a kilometer (assuming it took me about 3 seconds)."
================================================== ==============

Not a good analogy, Pete.
It's not an analogy - it's a meaningful thought experiment. Just as meaningful as the Earth-spaceship-laser experiment.

Here's a simple question. Please, give a simple answer:
How far did I move?
a) 2 metres
b) 1000 metres
c) Both measurements equally valid
d) Neither measurement is valid

Pete, you know very well that both measurements are valid. Now put that observer in
geosynchronous orbit with the Earth. How far did you move according to that observer? Do you and he agree you have moved two meters? How far has the observer
moved according to celestial mechanics? How far has the observer moved in his own
frame according to Special Relativity? How does he stay in orbit without falling to
Earth?

Yes, I know that SR doesn't apply to orbits. I started typing out something 'cute' to say, but decided not to. But hovering relative to what? How does he know if he is
hovering or in orbital freefall?

Pete, you know very well that both measurements are valid.
Right.

Now try this one:

How far did the laser beam travel?
a) 299792458m each way
b) 599584916m each way
c) Both measurements are equally valid
d) Neither measurement is valid

299,792,458 meters each way. Did I get it right,huh? Did I pass my Special Relativity
test? Did I pass my Newtonian mechanics test? Oh dear me, which one is correct,
Albert or Isaac?

Hi 2inquisitive,
I can't follow what you're thinking...

To me, it seems inconsistent to say that "both measurements are valid" for one case, but not for the other.

Pete, you know exactly what my point was. In Newtonian mechanics, the SPACESHIP
STAYS IN MOTION. It does not place the Earth in a false moving frame or reference.
The spaceship observer sees the same thing happen as the Earth observer, the
spaceship observer sees the laser beam comming up to intercept his forward moving
motion and bounce back down to the Earth observer, 299,792,458 meters each way,
for a total travel time of 2 seconds, the same as the Earth observer sees. Special
Relativity CHANGES THE PHYSICS between the two frames by artifically placing the
Earth, and the subsequent path the laser beam takes, into motion. Now it takes
4 seconds for the total travel time of the laser beam due to the longer path.
The stopwatch on the spacecraft records MORE time for the event to happen than
the Earth-based stopwatch. Special Relativity states MOVING CLOCKS RUN SLOWER.
What I did was give a scenario in which the event started with the Earth in the rest
frame and ended in the spaceship's frame of reference, in which Special Relativity
places the Earth in the artificial moving frame of reference and stopped the scenario
at this point with recorded times for travel time of light in both frames of reference.
The moving clock DOES NOT RUN SLOW. Seems to me that anyone with half a brain
should be able to figure out what relativity does by swapping frames, it was just a
matter of comming up with a paradox to eliminate the many crutches that Relativists
use to discredit what is obviously happening, to twist the facts to eliminate falsification of the theory. Anyone who has read any material on Special Relativity
will see the many 'exceptions' throughout the theory to eliminate falsification of its
predictions. An example is in sequencing of events, SR states the sequence of events
is frame dependent and each observer's view is as valid as any other observer's view
EXCEPT when it involves death or something which can show how ludricrous the
statement is. I wonder if another 'exception' will be added to cover a scenario such
as I proposed. Got to defend Special Relativity, haven't we? We don't want to give
up our 'wonderful' fantasies. We love entertaining thought experiments of impossible
things happening. Sorry kids, the Easter Bunny is not real. All those colored eggs
you found are not 'proof' the Easter Bunny left them. You were coached as to where
to find them and told they were 'proof' of the Easter Bunny. Grow up. Face reality.
Special Relativity is an illusion, a fantasy. Physicist have trouble recognizing what
is happening because of the rigirous textbook method in which the theory is taught
in the educational system. Because the mathematics are consistent doesn't mean
the theory is correct. Sidestep those mathematics and look at the theory from a
different angle. Time dilation is obviousy false. It was just an attempt by the theory
to keep the speed of light constant for every observer. It fails to do that if you look
at a relativistic event FROM THE SIDE of the event. The speed of light is violated
when the Lorentz contractions apply to only one direction, the direction of motion.
I have made the ludicrous statement in this thread many times about the clock
'speeding up' when looking at a Lorentz-contracted event from the side. No one,
except Pete once, has challenged this distortion of Special Relativity. Why? Because
they know the speed of light would be violated when the event was viewed from the
side. It is obvious from the very first step in the 'Twin Paradox.' The Earth observer
states the spaceship has contracted in the direction of motion and 'its clock runs
slow.' Give me a break. That places a violation of the speed of light upon the frame.
Then the spaceship observer is automatically required to except the Earth-based
observer's 'view' (time delay caused by light travel times) as his reality and his
clock is, viola!, running slow. Of course he doesn't know it, hehe. He thinks his clock
hasn't changed and 'views' the Earth clock as running slower (time delay, again)
than his now mandated slow running clock. And the universe that is magically traveling
past him is all contracted in one direction and its clock is running slow. Violation of
the speed of light is imposed again. When this traveler looks toward the direction
the universe is comming from, what is the speed of light? Of course, still 'c' because
his clock is running slow. What happens when he looks out the side window? Woops!
But it doesn't matter anyway because his clock never ran slow to start with. The
paradox at the beginning of this thread proves this. Pete dropped quite a few points
in my integrity rating. Want me to point that out too? It was his quote of the 'two
events happening at the same place in some reference frame will always be viewed
to take longer in any other reference frame' (paraphrased, I don't remember exactly
how it was stated) statement to imply that the FAST running clock was consistent
with relativity's predictions. A deliberate falsification of the true meaning of the
statement to show Special Relativity as uncompromised. Shame on you, Pete! I
know it means the 'tick rate' will be longer in other frames, in other words a SLOW
running clock. I kept referring to premise that 'so, clocks can run FAST or slow'
to see if any other physicist would correct this obvious violation of Special Relativity's
predictions. No one did. Physicists seem to believe that it is 'alright' to make any kind
of asinine argument to SUPPORT Special Relativity and don't point out another physicists misstatements as long as he is argueing FOR the cause. After all, physicists
are smart and everyone else is dumb and they will never know the difference. Do you
physicists not see why I find a lack of integrity in many of you? Do you not think others see this also? I am not highly educated and I don't know physics, but I can
still recognize horseshit when I see it.

by Pete:

Would you like to engage in a debate on whether or not distance measurements are valid in only one frame?"
================================================== ============

I guess that might be a good idea, Pete. All we have to do is expand my little paradox
a little. It was such fun with the lasers and all, why not give each frame its own laser
and reflector? You know, the Earth has a laser and a reflector and the spaceship also
has a laser and reflector. Isn't this starting to sound like fun to you? The original
separation distances stay the same and they both fire their lasers at ABOUT the same
time, I know it is not supposed to be possible for it to be the exact same time. Fun!
The Earth based observer will record 2 seconds for the travel of his own laser beam to the
spaceship reflector and back and 4 seconds for the travel time of the spaceship's laser
beam to his new reflector and and back to the spaceship. The spaceship observer will
record 2 seconds travel time for his laser beam to the Earth-based reflector placed
for him and back to his new collector. Doesn't something seem a little odd to you?

Oh, I forgot to add we need two observers and stopwatches in each location. I'm
not very good at this type of thing. In each frame of reference, one observer will time
his own laser's beam travel time and one will time the beam travel time of the reflected
beam from the other frame of reference. I just hope they don't get into a fight about
who's stopwatch is correct.