Special Relativity Is Refuted

[chinglu]

This link shows if the spherical light wave propagates away from the unprimed frame at c, then based on calculus, there are regions of space in which the spherical light wave propagates toward the primed origin contradicting the light postulate in the primed frame.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0002v1.pdf

[AlexG]

Too stupid for words.

[Emil]

Special Relativity Is Refuted

This was demonstrated long ago here on the SciForums.

[chinglu]

Too stupid for words.

The poster presented math.
What math is incorrect?

[chinglu]

This was demonstrated long ago here on the SciForums.

So, what math is incorrect in the article?

[rpenner]

You used math to contradict the postulate. Since geometry, including hyperbolic geometry is self-consistent, the error belongs to the author. It is self-refuting, self published tripe.

[chinglu]

You used math to contradict the postulate. It is self-refuting, self published tripe.

So, what math is incorrect.

The article is very specific with the math and you are very smart.

Therefore, you can PROVE the math false.

How long will that take?

[chinglu]

You used math to contradict the postulate. Since geometry, including hyperbolic geometry is self-consistent, the error belongs to the author. It is self-refuting, self published tripe.

Did I mention the article used calculus?

Sometimes I forget things.

Cording to calculus, if the SLW propagates away from the unprimed origin, it must propagate toward the primed origin given the examples.

Are you claining calculus is false?

[CptBork]

Did I mention the article used calculus?

Sometimes I forget things.

Cording to calculus, if the SLW propagates away from the unprimed origin, it must propagate toward the primed origin given the examples.

Are you claining calculus is false?

Calculus isn't false, but the way this guy's trying to apply it is what's wrong. The partial derivative \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} is incorrectly calculated on the assumption that the y component of the light pulse's position can be varied independently of x, contradicting the spherical wave postulate which was used to substitute t\to\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}. Didn't bother reading the remainder of the paper, because this kind of faulty logic is crap.

[chinglu]

Calculus isn't false, but the way this guy's trying to apply it is what's wrong. The partial derivative \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} is incorrectly calculated on the assumption that the y component of the light pulse's position can be varied independently of x, contradicting the spherical wave postulate which was used to substitute t\to\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}. Didn't bother reading the remainder of the paper, because this kind of faulty logic is crap.

The partial deriative can be complicated.

But, it holds y and z fixed and calculates the derivative therefrom.

The partial derivative is correct in the paper.

Try again.

[CptBork]

The partial deriative can be complicated.

No, it's not complicated at all, certainly not the example you provided. Standard first week freshman material.


But, it holds y and z fixed and calculates the derivative therefrom.

The paper already assumes a spherical light wave, which means y is constrained to be proportional to x, which means no, they can't be independently varied. By your logic you could also treat t as an independent variable, and then you'd get \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x}=1, which would be ridiculous.


The partial derivative is correct in the paper.

Try again.

You should have checked the math with us first before wasting your time writing up all that LaTeX.

[Emil]

So, what math is incorrect in the article?

I think I used incorrect English.
Special Relativity was refuted long ago, here on the SciForums.

[chinglu]

No, it's not complicated at all, certainly not the example you provided. Standard first week freshman material.



The paper already assumes a spherical light wave, which means y is constrained to be proportional to x, which means no, they can't be independently varied. By your logic you could also treat t as an independent variable, and then you'd get \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x}=1, which would be ridiculous.



You should have checked the math with us first before wasting your time writing up all that LaTeX.

Uh, I see you are confused.

Y and z are fixed.

Now, can you refute y and z fixed that |x'| decreases as negative with x increasing with the SLW between the origins?

[chinglu]

I think I used incorrect English.
Special Relativity was refuted long ago, here on the SciForums.

How?

[CptBork]

Uh, I see you are confused.

Y and z are fixed.

Then it's no longer a spherical wave- the relation t=\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2} doesn't hold for fixed y,z unless you set y=z=0 for all times, and if the light pulse propagates directly along the x-axis, then it's a basic result that the pulse will be moving at c in the same direction in both frames.

[Emil]

How?
Watch Motor Daddy's posts and my posts.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101682&highlight=Special+Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107365
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107162&highlight=Special+Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107854&highlight=Special+Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107893&highlight=Special+Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107191&highlight=Special+Relativity
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106667&highlight=Special+Relativity

[Tach]

Watch Motor Daddy's posts and my posts.



the two "scientists" hard at work .

[AlexG]

Two cranks spinning in the same direction.

[OnlyMe]

Admitting that I have not read the whole of the paper, if this were a court of law the proper response would be, "Assumes facts not in evidence".

An initial issue, at least from the Abstract, is that the paper is addressing the situation from within the context of special relativity, which is consistent with a frame of reference that is a flat 4-D Minkowski space time, consistent with special relativity. While even a few years ago we could have assumed that the conclusions drawn from such a perspective were valid, on their own merit. That is not entirely the case today.

It has always been assumed, that general relativity reduces to consistency with Newtonian dynamics locally. This because within the known margins of error Newton's field equations represent a good description of local space. General relativity becomes dominant only in the case of the proximity of "strong" gravitational fields.

The recent results from the GP-B experiment demonstrate that space is curved and dynamic even under gravitational condition traditionally considered to be dominated by Newtonian dynamics. This suggests that instead of general relativity reducing to Newtonian dynamics locally, it is more likely Newton's field equations provide a close approximation of Einstein's field equations, locally.

Since we know know now know that space is locally dynamic, we also know that it is nowhere truly completely Newtonian. Beginning the exploration of a model such as has been put forward within the confines of special relativity is by far an easier task than jumping right into the more complicated field equation and space-time of GR. However, in light of the proofs provided by the GP-B experiment, until the assumptions and conclusions have been verified from the perspective of GR, they can no longer be assumed to be a proof.

This really bothers me personally. However, GP-B has proven that space is locally curved and because of the nature of light we can no longer assume that, in the case of light space and space-time are anywhere anything other than relativistic.

Does this sound like garbage? In some ways it does really bother me, personally. But it does seem that we can no longer treat SR and a flat 4-D Minkowski space time as anything other than a locally close approximation of GR rather than the other way around.

Beyond all this, the paper cited and its conclusions are not consistent with experience.

[James R]

I think I used incorrect English.
Special Relativity was refuted long ago, here on the SciForums.

Where was this ground-breaking refutation published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

Why didn't I see this ground-breaking refutation of Einstein's work publicised in the news media?

[przyk]

Then it's no longer a spherical wave- the relation t=\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2} doesn't hold for fixed y,z unless you set y=z=0 for all times, and if the light pulse propagates directly along the x-axis, then it's a basic result that the pulse will be moving at c in the same direction in both frames.
Actually the derivative still is fixed on the expanding wave. Doing the partial derivative for fixed y and z just means the author isn't doing it for fixed \theta and \varphi: i.e. he's considering a point that's moving around the expanding sphere in such a way that its y and z coordinates always stay the same instead of expanding radially outward. In some cases such a point will actually move faster than c, which could easily lead to the sort of causality reversals the author seems to be confused by. Note that the author also found t' decreasing, for increasing t, under exactly the same circumstances.

[rpenner]

Hello, back from a long drive and dinner.
There are five glaring mistakes on page 2, which is exactly what we expect when the level of discussion is "the article used calculus"

The Five mistakes I would like to unravel are:
1) Incorrect manipulation of expressions, which ignore the postulates. Thus he stops talking about the physics of light.
2) Ignoring the rest of the Lorentz transform
3) The absurd assertion that radially propagating light also propagates along a vertical line with fixed y.
4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because "\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0 and \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} > 0 and x' < 0 are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.

Correct manipulation of expressions
Given z = 0 \, , \; 0 < x \, , \; 0 < y \, , \; 0 < v < c , c^2 t^2 = x^2 + y^2 describes a two-dimensional surface. So solutions are necessarily parameterized by two independent variables.
t(x,y) = \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} is one possible parameterization.
x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta is another.
x(y,t) = \sqrt{c^2 t^2 - y^2} is another.

So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of x and t, we have the related choices:
x'(x,y) = \left( x - v t(x,y) \right) \gamma = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{c \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} \\ y'(x,y) = y \\ t'(x,y) = \left( t(x,y) - \frac{v x}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{\frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} - \frac{v x}{c^2}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{c \sqrt{c^2-v^2}}

Partial derivatives are only partial derivatives

Now we can take partial derivatives of these expressions, remembering to do the work Mr Banks ignored:
\begin{array}{rclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{c - \frac{v x}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & 0 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{\frac{cx}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} - v}{c \sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{x}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \\ \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{- v y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & 1 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \end{array}

So here we can see that even though \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, \frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} < 0 and so the sign of \partial x' is indeterminate unless we add a constraint on \partial x \, , \; \partial y. Mr. Banks sees to hold y constant, but then he is no longer describing the propagation of rays of light but where the expanding sphere of light meets the line y = y_g which is akin to a searchlight beam hitting a wall and not akin to a particle. Like a spot on the wall lit up by a laser pointer, it is not constrained to move slower than light.
\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = c \sqrt{1 + \frac{y^2_g}{x^2}} > c

Directions need more than one coordinate
Even with all the problems, does the imaginary choice move away from the new coordinate origin?
To answer this, we must take the dot product of the velocity with the position in the new coordinate system and check the sign.
x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} = x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} = c \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} which is always greater than zero, indicating that even in the bad physics, Mr. Banks has also erred when "the article used calculus."

A better way
Because of the conservation of angular momentum, we should use a better parameterization to see the fate of actual rays of light. x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta is natural.
So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of theta and t, we have the related choices:
x'(\theta,t) = \left( x(\theta,t) - v t \right) \gamma = \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \\ y'(\theta,t) = y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta \\ t'(\theta,t) = \left( t - \frac{v x(\theta,t)}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t

\begin{array}{rclrclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{-c \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & ct \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{\frac{v}{c} \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & - c t \, \sin \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & c t \, \cos \theta \\ \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \sin \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \sin \theta \end{array}

So how fast is light moving in the unprimed frame (holding theta constant)?
\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y}{\partial t} \right)^2} = c
And in the unprimed frame?
\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2 + \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2} = c

So is the light moving towards the origin in the primed frame?
\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \right) \left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) + \left( ct \, \sin \theta \right) \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) = \frac{c^2 t (v-c \cos \theta)^2}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2} (c-v \cos \theta)} + \frac{c^2 t \sqrt{c^2 - v^2} \sin^2 \theta}{c - v \cos \theta} = \frac{c^2 t (c-v \cos \theta)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} > 0
Of course not. Only someone without the ability to understand special relativity would think so. Only someone who doesn't understand calculus would calculate so.

[Emil]

Pseudoscience?!?

Where was this ground-breaking refutation published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

Why didn't I see this ground-breaking refutation of Einstein's work publicised in the news media?

I said several times and I pointed out that has nothing to do with math.Who starts on this path, make a strategic mistake.
The only problem is the speed of light relative to a moving object.
Researchers in the field applied, not even bothering to contradict.
They don't have time to deal with such nonsense. If you want to live in this Alice's Wonderland is your business.
You know any device that the operation is based on length contraction or time dilation?

If you're so sure I propose to finance the realization of the following device.(I warn you will lose the money.)

"Solar panels that provide electricity converted from the light.
Refractive indices of air 1.000277 speed of light in air c/1.000277
Refractive indices of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) 1.36 speed of light in ethanol c/1.361 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices)
Due to length contraction, the light from ethanol "sees" length 28.8 times higher that the light from the air. (0.6783339/0.0235372)
Surface 28.8X28.8=829,4 times higher.
So if we dive in ethanol the panel, we obtain an energy of 829.4 times higher."

If you want I can give the evidence for the absence of length contraction.

[Trippy]

You know any device that the operation is based on length contraction or time dilation?
Sure - GPS networks have to account for it.

[Emil]

Sure - GPS networks have to account for it.

Please a link.

[origin]

Please a link.

It is really hard to find this info - you have to google :time, dilation, GPS.

Try this link. (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html)

So is this site a conspiracy, are they liars, are they sheeple, or do they just not have the intelligence of you and motor daddy?:D

[origin]

If you're so sure I propose to finance the realization of the following device.(I warn you will lose the money.)

"Solar panels that provide electricity converted from the light.
Refractive indices of air 1.000277 speed of light in air c/1.000277
Refractive indices of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) 1.36 speed of light in ethanol c/1.361 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices)
Due to length contraction, the light from ethanol "sees" length 28.8 times higher that the light from the air. (0.6783339/0.0235372)
Surface 28.8X28.8=829,4 times higher.
So if we dive in ethanol the panel, we obtain an energy of 829.4 times higher."

About all I can say is that is really, really stupid, for any number of reasons. What does the refractive index of a material have to do with length contraction? Hint - nothing.


If you want I can give the evidence for the absence of length contraction.

Go for it.

[Motor Daddy]

....or do they just not have the intelligence of you and motor daddy?:D

It's not about intelligence, it's about what's right. You mention intelligence as if it's measurable as an absolute?

[Captain Kremmen]

This link shows if the spherical light wave propagates away from the unprimed frame at c, then based on calculus, there are regions of space in which the spherical light wave propagates toward the primed origin contradicting the light postulate in the primed frame.


Can a wave be spherical?

[origin]

It's not about intelligence, it's about what's right. You mention intelligence as if it's measurable as an absolute?

Then refute the link.

[origin]

Can a wave be spherical?

Sound waves are.

[Captain Kremmen]

Sound waves.
Yes, I suppose they go in all directions once they have been emitted.
Are light waves the same?

[OnlyMe]

Sound waves are.

Sound waves are not in theirselves spherical, though they do propagate 3-dimensionally.., spherically.

This is probably what the OP had meant or intended, light propagating from a point of origin in a sperical wave front. Though this is possible. We "see" such when we turn on a common light bulb, but what is missing is that that wave front is not the same as the wave front we find in the case of sound. It is comprised of individual photons, each of which propagates in its own line away from the point of origin.

If the OP were correct we should expect that the photon essentially propagates away and toward the point of origin. (that was awkward) This just does not make sense and is not consistent with experience.

The mathematical issue seems to be being addressed.

[Motor Daddy]

Then refute the link.

The link says,


Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with an accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second).

Accuracy of 1 nanosecond compared to what??

[AlexG]

It's pretty pointless arguing with MD. He has a long history of ignoring experiment and observation in favor of his delusions.

[OnlyMe]

Accuracy of 1 nanosecond compared to what??

If the question is what is a nanosecond compared to.., that would be one second.

[Motor Daddy]

If the question is what is a nanosecond compared to.., that would be one second.

So there is a standard second, of which all measures of time are to be taken?

[Captain Kremmen]

a wave front is not the same as the wave front we find in the case of sound. It is comprised of individual photons, each of which propagates in its own line away from the point of origin.




How come a light wave can be seen as being made up of particles, but a sound wave can't?

It's all energy isn't it?

[AlexG]

One difference between a sound wave and light is that sound is one molecule hitting another and transferring energy through collisions, whereas light consists of photons.

[OnlyMe]

So there is a standard second, of which all measures of time are to be taken?

I did not say there was a single standard second, only that a nanosecond is defined as a specific fraction of a second.

[OnlyMe]

One difference between a sound wave and light is that sound is one molecule hitting another and transferring energy through collisions, whereas light consists of photons.

Another difference is that the propagation velocity of sound waves increases with the density of the medium through which it propagates increases, where the propagation velocity of light increases as the density of the medium decreases.

In the extremes.., light propagates through a vacuum where sound may not pass and sound propagates through solids where light may not pass.

[Emil]

It is really hard to find this info - you have to google :time, dilation, GPS.

Try this link. (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html)

So is this site a conspiracy, are they liars, are they sheeple, or do they just not have the intelligence of you and motor daddy?:D

The author of the link, has no idea about the GPS.
It's a stupidity.
Read carefully and learn!

Timekeeping and leap seconds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Timekeeping_and_leap_sec onds)


Timekeeping and leap seconds
While most clocks are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), the atomic clocks on the satellites are set to GPS time (GPST; see the page of United States Naval Observatory). The difference is that GPS time is not corrected to match the rotation of the Earth, so it does not contain leap seconds or other corrections that are periodically added to UTC. GPS time was set to match Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in 1980, but has since diverged. The lack of corrections means that GPS time remains at a constant offset with International Atomic Time (TAI) (TAI – GPS = 19 seconds). Periodic corrections are performed on the on-board clocks to keep them synchronized with ground clocks.[80]
The GPS navigation message includes the difference between GPS time and UTC, which as of 2011 is 15 seconds because of the leap second added to UTC December 31, 2008. Receivers add this offset to GPS time to calculate UTC and specific timezone values. New GPS units may not show the correct UTC time until after receiving the UTC offset message. The GPS-UTC offset field can accommodate 255 leap seconds (eight bits) that, given the current period of the Earth's rotation (with one leap second introduced approximately every 18 months), should be sufficient to last until approximately the year 2300.

[Emil]

One difference between a sound wave and light is that sound is one molecule hitting another and transferring energy through collisions, whereas light consists of photons.
You ever heard of wave–particle duality?
You can explain why increases the propagation speed of the light when leaving the water?

[AlexG]

You ever heard of wave–particle duality?
You can explain why increases the propagation speed of the light when leaving the water?

Sound and light have two completely different mechanisms.

In a medium other than a vacuum light propagates by continual absorbtion and re-emission of photons by electrons.

Have you ever studied any physics? Or do you just depend on Wiki?

[origin]

The link says,

How can a link talk?



Accuracy of 1 nanosecond compared to what??

Big Ben.

[OnlyMe]

In a medium other than a vacuum light propagates by continual absorbtion and re-emission of photons by electrons.

AlexG, I understand this explanation and its logic. Still I have always had some reservation as to its accuracy, based on the following.

Every medium that we are aware of that is transparent to light is composed of atoms and molecules with known and documented EM absorption and emission spectrum that are well defined. The model referred to in the quote above assumes that we can both know what material(s) a light source originates from, by its emission spectrum and what material(s) it has traveled through by absorption spectrums, while at the same time assuming that the light or individual photons are absorbed and emitted unchanged by those same absorption and emission characteristics, of the involved medium(s).

If that model as an explanation is accurate and not just an artifact of logic, how can we assume that any of the light we perceive as originating in the far reaches of the universe tells us anything about the far reaches of the universe?, when the photons we detect have undergone an unknown number of absorptions and re-emissions?

[origin]

The author of the link, has no idea about the GPS.
It's a stupidity.
Read carefully and learn!

Timekeeping and leap seconds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Timekeeping_and_leap_sec onds)

Hmm... so you are going with their stupid? I was guessing you would go with conspiracy, but thinking about it, the stupid angle makes more sense. You are completely ignorant of physics so it is actually quite easy for you to dismiss the authors as stupid becasue what they are writting makes no sense (to YOU).:rolleyes:

[Emil]

Sound and light have two completely different mechanisms.

In a medium other than a vacuum light propagates by continual absorbtion and re-emission of photons by electrons.

Have you ever studied any physics? Or do you just depend on Wiki?
Once again you have shown your ignorance.
Photon emission direction is not correlated with the direction of absorbed photon.
What does this mean? Do it yourself if you are able.
I recommend to you to search Google, but I see that you are not accustomed
to get information.

[Motor Daddy]

Hmm... so you are going with their stupid? I was guessing you would go with conspiracy, but thinking about it, the stupid angle makes more sense. You are completely ignorant of physics so it is actually quite easy for you to dismiss the authors as stupid becasue what they are writting makes no sense (to YOU).:rolleyes:

Oh the irony. :)

What is a stupid?

[Emil]

Hmm... so you are going with their stupid? I was guessing you would go with conspiracy, but thinking about it, the stupid angle makes more sense. You are completely ignorant of physics so it is actually quite easy for you to dismiss the authors as stupid becasue what they are writting makes no sense (to YOU).:rolleyes:
It was about GPS systems, isn't it?
Before you post something documenting yourself about it.
See why is necessary the time correction for GPS systems, before you say something stupid.

[origin]

It was about GPS systems, isn't it?
Before you post something documenting yourself about it.
See why is necessary the time correction for GPS systems, before you say something stupid.

Have you been drinking?

[origin]

What is a stupid?

Try an online dictionary.

[Motor Daddy]

Try an online dictionary.

Is it someone that doesn't know the proper use of the words their and they're?

[Trippy]

See why is necessary the time correction for GPS systems, before you say something stupid.

Yeah, some how I'm not surpirsed by direction this discussion has taken.

From your own source:


The difference is that GPS time is not corrected to match the rotation of the Earth, so it does not contain leap seconds or other corrections that are periodically added to UTC. GPS time was set to match Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in 1980, but has since diverged. The lack of corrections means that GPS time remains at a constant offset with International Atomic Time (TAI) (TAI – GPS = 19 seconds). Periodic corrections are performed on the on-board clocks to keep them synchronized with ground clocks.

Nothing to do with Relativity, the adjustments for relativity were performed before the satellite was launched.

The adjustments wikipedia mentions relate to glitches in the earths rotation, and changes in its rate of rotation due to things like tidal friction with the moon, and changes in the earths mass distribution. The changes in the earths mass distribution occur because of things like mantle convection and earthquakes. I think also that the coupling between the core and the earths magnetic field comes into it as well.

[Emil]

Nothing to do with Relativity...
I agree

... the adjustments for relativity were performed before the satellite was launched.
I disagree.
The corrections which are made ​​are described here: Global Positioning System, Correcting a GPS receiver clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Correcting_a_GPS_receive r.27s_clock)

[chinglu]

Then it's no longer a spherical wave- the relation t=\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2} doesn't hold for fixed y,z unless you set y=z=0 for all times, and if the light pulse propagates directly along the x-axis, then it's a basic result that the pulse will be moving at c in the same direction in both frames.

I see that the proper application of calculus is pseudoscience here. Why am I not surprised.

When you calculate the spherical light wave moving while holding y and z fixed, you get the results presented in the paper.

Did you ever learn above the partial derivative?

[chinglu]

Admitting that I have not read the whole of the paper, if this were a court of law the proper response would be, "Assumes facts not in evidence".

An initial issue, at least from the Abstract, is that the paper is addressing the situation from within the context of special relativity, which is consistent with a frame of reference that is a flat 4-D Minkowski space time, consistent with special relativity. While even a few years ago we could have assumed that the conclusions drawn from such a perspective were valid, on their own merit. That is not entirely the case today.

It has always been assumed, that general relativity reduces to consistency with Newtonian dynamics locally. This because within the known margins of error Newton's field equations represent a good description of local space. General relativity becomes dominant only in the case of the proximity of "strong" gravitational fields.

The recent results from the GP-B experiment demonstrate that space is curved and dynamic even under gravitational condition traditionally considered to be dominated by Newtonian dynamics. This suggests that instead of general relativity reducing to Newtonian dynamics locally, it is more likely Newton's field equations provide a close approximation of Einstein's field equations, locally.

Since we know know now know that space is locally dynamic, we also know that it is nowhere truly completely Newtonian. Beginning the exploration of a model such as has been put forward within the confines of special relativity is by far an easier task than jumping right into the more complicated field equation and space-time of GR. However, in light of the proofs provided by the GP-B experiment, until the assumptions and conclusions have been verified from the perspective of GR, they can no longer be assumed to be a proof.

This really bothers me personally. However, GP-B has proven that space is locally curved and because of the nature of light we can no longer assume that, in the case of light space and space-time are anywhere anything other than relativistic.

Does this sound like garbage? In some ways it does really bother me, personally. But it does seem that we can no longer treat SR and a flat 4-D Minkowski space time as anything other than a locally close approximation of GR rather than the other way around.

Beyond all this, the paper cited and its conclusions are not consistent with experience.


An initial issue, at least from the Abstract, is that the paper is addressing the situation from within the context of special relativity, which is consistent with a frame of reference that is a flat 4-D Minkowski space time, consistent with special relativity.

This does not work.

The paper assumes the truth of SR and explores the results using calculus.

It proves if the SLW propagates away from the unprimed origin along a fixed y line and z-0, then using calculus, the SLW propagates toward the primed origin.

[chinglu]

Actually the derivative still is fixed on the expanding wave. Doing the partial derivative for fixed y and z just means the author isn't doing it for fixed \theta and \varphi: i.e. he's considering a point that's moving around the expanding sphere in such a way that its y and z coordinates always stay the same instead of expanding radially outward. In some cases such a point will actually move faster than c, which could easily lead to the sort of causality reversals the author seems to be confused by. Note that the author also found t' decreasing, for increasing t, under exactly the same circumstances.

Let me see if I understand you.

Are you claiming that the spherical light wave does not propagate along a y line that is fixed and z = 0?

And, yes, you are correct, the intersections occur daster than the spedd of light.

So what. Now, take the next step. These SLW intersections with the y line propagate toward the primed origin contradicting the light postulate in the primed frame.

I see you were unable to refute this calculus fact.

[chinglu]

Hello, back from a long drive and dinner.
There are five glaring mistakes on page 2, which is exactly what we expect when the level of discussion is "the article used calculus"

The Five mistakes I would like to unravel are:
1) Incorrect manipulation of expressions, which ignore the postulates. Thus he stops talking about the physics of light.
2) Ignoring the rest of the Lorentz transform
3) The absurd assertion that radially propagating light also propagates along a vertical line with fixed y.
4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because "\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0 and \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} > 0 and x' < 0 are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.

Correct manipulation of expressions
Given z = 0 \, , \; 0 < x \, , \; 0 < y \, , \; 0 < v < c , c^2 t^2 = x^2 + y^2 describes a two-dimensional surface. So solutions are necessarily parameterized by two independent variables.
t(x,y) = \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} is one possible parameterization.
x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta is another.
x(y,t) = \sqrt{c^2 t^2 - y^2} is another.

So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of x and t, we have the related choices:
x'(x,y) = \left( x - v t(x,y) \right) \gamma = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{c \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} \\ y'(x,y) = y \\ t'(x,y) = \left( t(x,y) - \frac{v x}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{\frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} - \frac{v x}{c^2}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{c \sqrt{c^2-v^2}}

Partial derivatives are only partial derivatives

Now we can take partial derivatives of these expressions, remembering to do the work Mr Banks ignored:
\begin{array}{rclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{c - \frac{v x}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & 0 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{\frac{cx}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} - v}{c \sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{x}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \\ \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{- v y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & 1 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \end{array}

So here we can see that even though \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, \frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} < 0 and so the sign of \partial x' is indeterminate unless we add a constraint on \partial x \, , \; \partial y. Mr. Banks sees to hold y constant, but then he is no longer describing the propagation of rays of light but where the expanding sphere of light meets the line y = y_g which is akin to a searchlight beam hitting a wall and not akin to a particle. Like a spot on the wall lit up by a laser pointer, it is not constrained to move slower than light.
\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = c \sqrt{1 + \frac{y^2_g}{x^2}} > c

Directions need more than one coordinate
Even with all the problems, does the imaginary choice move away from the new coordinate origin?
To answer this, we must take the dot product of the velocity with the position in the new coordinate system and check the sign.
x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} = x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} = c \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} which is always greater than zero, indicating that even in the bad physics, Mr. Banks has also erred when "the article used calculus."

A better way
Because of the conservation of angular momentum, we should use a better parameterization to see the fate of actual rays of light. x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta is natural.
So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of theta and t, we have the related choices:
x'(\theta,t) = \left( x(\theta,t) - v t \right) \gamma = \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \\ y'(\theta,t) = y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta \\ t'(\theta,t) = \left( t - \frac{v x(\theta,t)}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t

\begin{array}{rclrclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{-c \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & ct \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{\frac{v}{c} \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & - c t \, \sin \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & c t \, \cos \theta \\ \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \sin \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \sin \theta \end{array}

So how fast is light moving in the unprimed frame (holding theta constant)?
\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y}{\partial t} \right)^2} = c
And in the unprimed frame?
\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2 + \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2} = c

So is the light moving towards the origin in the primed frame?
\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \right) \left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) + \left( ct \, \sin \theta \right) \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) = \frac{c^2 t (v-c \cos \theta)^2}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2} (c-v \cos \theta)} + \frac{c^2 t \sqrt{c^2 - v^2} \sin^2 \theta}{c - v \cos \theta} = \frac{c^2 t (c-v \cos \theta)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} > 0
Of course not. Only someone without the ability to understand special relativity would think so. Only someone who doesn't understand calculus would calculate so.

Let's see, we are viewing the SLW propagating along a fixed y line with z = 0 in the unprimed frame.

So, applying the partial derivative with y and z fixed is natural and normal. That is the first place you are confused.

The paper applied the partial derivative correctly. Now, if the partial derivative is false, then make that statement so you can be corrected.

You then make the statement that holding y fixed and z = 0 is not a legitimate wan to analyze the SLW. I suggest you take a freshmen course in calculus to gain a better understanding of the partial derivative and it applications.

Now, if the partial derivative in the paper is false, prove that which means you will prove calculus is false.

But, that is the problem set up by the author.

Both calculus and SR cannot be true.

[chinglu]

Sure - GPS networks have to account for it.

Does GPS account for reciprocal time dilation which is SR?

[chinglu]

Can a wave be spherical?

Well, probably not.

But, it is close enough.

[AlexG]

Pseudoscience is where this belongs.

A load of crap by a couple of cranks.

[chinglu]

Hello, back from a long drive and dinner.
There are five glaring mistakes on page 2, which is exactly what we expect when the level of discussion is "the article used calculus"

The Five mistakes I would like to unravel are:
1) Incorrect manipulation of expressions, which ignore the postulates. Thus he stops talking about the physics of light.
2) Ignoring the rest of the Lorentz transform
3) The absurd assertion that radially propagating light also propagates along a vertical line with fixed y.
4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because "\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0 and \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} > 0 and x' < 0 are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.

Correct manipulation of expressions
Given z = 0 \, , \; 0 < x \, , \; 0 < y \, , \; 0 < v < c , c^2 t^2 = x^2 + y^2 describes a two-dimensional surface. So solutions are necessarily parameterized by two independent variables.
t(x,y) = \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} is one possible parameterization.
x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta is another.
x(y,t) = \sqrt{c^2 t^2 - y^2} is another.

So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of x and t, we have the related choices:
x'(x,y) = \left( x - v t(x,y) \right) \gamma = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{c \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} \\ y'(x,y) = y \\ t'(x,y) = \left( t(x,y) - \frac{v x}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{\frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} - \frac{v x}{c^2}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{c \sqrt{c^2-v^2}}

Partial derivatives are only partial derivatives

Now we can take partial derivatives of these expressions, remembering to do the work Mr Banks ignored:
\begin{array}{rclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{c - \frac{v x}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & 0 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{\frac{cx}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} - v}{c \sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{x}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \\ \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{- v y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & 1 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \end{array}

So here we can see that even though \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, \frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} < 0 and so the sign of \partial x' is indeterminate unless we add a constraint on \partial x \, , \; \partial y. Mr. Banks sees to hold y constant, but then he is no longer describing the propagation of rays of light but where the expanding sphere of light meets the line y = y_g which is akin to a searchlight beam hitting a wall and not akin to a particle. Like a spot on the wall lit up by a laser pointer, it is not constrained to move slower than light.
\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = c \sqrt{1 + \frac{y^2_g}{x^2}} > c

Directions need more than one coordinate
Even with all the problems, does the imaginary choice move away from the new coordinate origin?
To answer this, we must take the dot product of the velocity with the position in the new coordinate system and check the sign.
x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} = x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} = c \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} which is always greater than zero, indicating that even in the bad physics, Mr. Banks has also erred when "the article used calculus."

A better way
Because of the conservation of angular momentum, we should use a better parameterization to see the fate of actual rays of light. x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta is natural.
So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of theta and t, we have the related choices:
x'(\theta,t) = \left( x(\theta,t) - v t \right) \gamma = \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \\ y'(\theta,t) = y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta \\ t'(\theta,t) = \left( t - \frac{v x(\theta,t)}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t

\begin{array}{rclrclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{-c \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & ct \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{\frac{v}{c} \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & - c t \, \sin \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & c t \, \cos \theta \\ \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \sin \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \sin \theta \end{array}

So how fast is light moving in the unprimed frame (holding theta constant)?
\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y}{\partial t} \right)^2} = c
And in the unprimed frame?
\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2 + \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2} = c

So is the light moving towards the origin in the primed frame?
\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \right) \left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) + \left( ct \, \sin \theta \right) \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) = \frac{c^2 t (v-c \cos \theta)^2}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2} (c-v \cos \theta)} + \frac{c^2 t \sqrt{c^2 - v^2} \sin^2 \theta}{c - v \cos \theta} = \frac{c^2 t (c-v \cos \theta)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} > 0
Of course not. Only someone without the ability to understand special relativity would think so. Only someone who doesn't understand calculus would calculate so.

I will address two more glaring errors in your presentation.


3) The absurd assertion that radially propagating light also propagates along a vertical line with fixed y.

Directions need more than one coordinate

1) You are claiming that a spherical light pulse does not propagate along a fixed y line because it magically disappears along that line.

2) You confuse yourself with directions. The article clearly states the light like space time interval is invariant. Therefore, the direction of motion is measured from the origin of the frame to the intersection of the SLW with the fixed yg line.

Hence, your statement above and extensive failed math after that is worthless.

[chinglu]

Pseudoscience is where this belongs.

A load of crap by a couple of cranks.

The calculus has been presented.

You can either refute it or submit to it.

[AlexG]

rpenner refuted it quite nicely.

[chinglu]

rpenner refuted it quite nicely.

I can see you do not understand math.

Why don't you summarize his argument and show you understand it.

[chinglu]

Wow, I have yet to see a poster here that understands the proper use of the partial derivative.

Any attacker to this thread would need to understand that since the partial derivative is used extensively in SR.

I will expect any attacker that defends SR to show they understand multivariable calculus since that is SR.

[AlexG]

Simply ignore experiment and observation in favor of your misapplication of calculus.

There is no point in continuing to argue with you, because you ignore reality.

[arfa brane]

I would expect anyone who mentions blackbody radiation as part of an astronomical measurement to understand it too.

Oops, I got one crank confused with another.

[chinglu]

Simply ignore experiment and observation in favor of your misapplication of calculus.

There is no point in continuing to argue with you, because you ignore reality.

The calculus is applied correctly. Otherwise prove it is applied incorrectly.
To defend SR, you will need to prove calculus is false.

Can you do that?

[AlexG]

To defend SR, you will need to prove calculus is false.



To defend SR, we simply look at experiment, observation and application.

Reality trumps you.

[chinglu]

Here I will show everyone how it works.
Picture 1 is the SLW when it hits the point (0,yg,0) in the unprimed frame.
X
|
|
|
|
|.......|
UP...P

Picture 2 the SLW has expanded and intersected the line y = yg further from the point (0,yg,0) in the unprimed frame but is now closer to the primed frame origin. Thus the expansion of the SLW in the unprimed frame translates to contraction in the primed frame which contradicts the light postulate in the primed frame making SR a contradiction.
| X
|
|
|
|
|.........|
UP.....P

[arfa brane]

The calculus is applied correctly. Otherwise prove it is applied incorrectly.The calculus is not applied correctly. If it was it would agree with actual measurements, and it doesn't.
Prove that calculus can show that actual measurements are all wrong, go on.

It's like saying you can prove that petrol isn't a fuel that powers internal combustion in an engine. Or that birds don't fly due to aerodynamic principles, but some other (mathematical) reason.
Or say, that light doesn't propagate through space due to an electromagnetic principle, which has been established, and accepted as an explanation that works, for well over a century.

It's just dumb, end of story.

[chinglu]

To defend SR, we simply look at experiment, observation and application.

Reality trumps you.

No it does not.

Math and calculus wins.

You sound like a religious bigot that hates math and calculus results.

[chinglu]

The calculus is not applied correctly. If it was it would agree with actual measurements, and it doesn't.
Prove that calculus can show that actual measurements are all wrong, go on.

It's like saying you can prove that petrol isn't a fuel that powers internal combustion in an engine. Or that birds don't fly due to aerodynamic principles, but some other (mathematical) reason.
Or say, that light doesn't propagate through space due to an electromagnetic principle, which has been established, and accepted as an explanation that works, for well over a century.

It's just dumb, end of story.

That is the thing about math.

Any idiot can prove a misapplication or error.

I see you cannot do that. LOL

[AlexG]

No it does not.

Math and calculus wins.

You sound like a religious bigot that hates math and calculus results.

Only an idiot thinks that reality doesn't matter.

Cranks like to ignore reality.

They live in a universe of their own.

[Trippy]

I agree
Not what I said - you're being dishonest.


I disagree.
The corrections which are made ​​are described here: Global Positioning System, Correcting a GPS receiver clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Correcting_a_GPS_receive r.27s_clock)
We're talking about corrections applied to the satelite, not the receiver. Try again, try harder (actually, I'll settle for you just trying at this point).

There is a relativistic correction which is applied before launch, which is the correction I was referring to, and there are corrections applied to the whole network due to changes in the way the earth rotates about its own axis, and then there are corrections applied to the recievers.

[arfa brane]

Any idiot can prove a misapplication or error.

I see you cannot do that. LOL Any idiot can claim they can use calculus to prove that measurements are wrong, I see you have no idea how to do that.

What's that stuck on your chin, btw?

[chinglu]

Only an idiot thinks that reality doesn't matter.

Cranks like to ignore reality.

They live in a universe of their own.

So, since any idiot can prove an application of calculus is false and you cannot, then .....

[chinglu]

Any idiot can claim they can use calculus to prove that measurements are wrong, I see you have no idea how to do that.

What's that stuck on your chin, btw?

I proved that the calculus is correct. Otherwise, prove it is false.

So, the calculus stands.

[AlexG]

As I said, there's no point in arguing with a crank. They'll believe what they want to believe, despite reality proving them wrong.

[chinglu]

As I said, there's no point in arguing with a crank. They'll believe what they want to believe, despite reality proving them wrong.

Math?

Otherwise, flick along.

[AlexG]

Reality?

Otherwise, dismissed.

[chinglu]

Reality?

Otherwise, dismissed.

Good you and your folks think math is not reality.

What do you name your religion?

[Trippy]

I proved that the calculus is correct. Otherwise, prove it is false.

So, the calculus stands.

The calculus has been shown to be wrong, and your assertions contradict the available experimental evidence.

Take a moment to step back and think about what that should tell you.

[chinglu]

The calculus has been shown to be wrong, and your assertions contradict the available experimental evidence.

Take a moment to step back and think about what that should tell you.

The calculus has not been shown wrong.

Otherwise, let's see your proof.

[Trippy]

The calculus has not been shown wrong.

Otherwise, let's see your proof.
Here, RPenners glorious post:

Hello, back from a long drive and dinner.
There are five glaring mistakes on page 2, which is exactly what we expect when the level of discussion is "the article used calculus"

The Five mistakes I would like to unravel are:
1) Incorrect manipulation of expressions, which ignore the postulates. Thus he stops talking about the physics of light.
2) Ignoring the rest of the Lorentz transform
3) The absurd assertion that radially propagating light also propagates along a vertical line with fixed y.
4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because "\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0 and \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} > 0 and x' < 0 are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.

Correct manipulation of expressions
Given z = 0 \, , \; 0 < x \, , \; 0 < y \, , \; 0 < v < c , c^2 t^2 = x^2 + y^2 describes a two-dimensional surface. So solutions are necessarily parameterized by two independent variables.
t(x,y) = \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} is one possible parameterization.
x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta is another.
x(y,t) = \sqrt{c^2 t^2 - y^2} is another.

So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of x and t, we have the related choices:
x'(x,y) = \left( x - v t(x,y) \right) \gamma = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{c \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} \\ y'(x,y) = y \\ t'(x,y) = \left( t(x,y) - \frac{v x}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{\frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} - \frac{v x}{c^2}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{c \sqrt{c^2-v^2}}

Partial derivatives are only partial derivatives

Now we can take partial derivatives of these expressions, remembering to do the work Mr Banks ignored:
\begin{array}{rclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{c - \frac{v x}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & 0 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{\frac{cx}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} - v}{c \sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{x}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \\ \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{- v y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & 1 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \end{array}

So here we can see that even though \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, \frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} < 0 and so the sign of \partial x' is indeterminate unless we add a constraint on \partial x \, , \; \partial y. Mr. Banks sees to hold y constant, but then he is no longer describing the propagation of rays of light but where the expanding sphere of light meets the line y = y_g which is akin to a searchlight beam hitting a wall and not akin to a particle. Like a spot on the wall lit up by a laser pointer, it is not constrained to move slower than light.
\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = c \sqrt{1 + \frac{y^2_g}{x^2}} > c

Directions need more than one coordinate
Even with all the problems, does the imaginary choice move away from the new coordinate origin?
To answer this, we must take the dot product of the velocity with the position in the new coordinate system and check the sign.
x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} = x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} = c \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} which is always greater than zero, indicating that even in the bad physics, Mr. Banks has also erred when "the article used calculus."

A better way
Because of the conservation of angular momentum, we should use a better parameterization to see the fate of actual rays of light. x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta is natural.
So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of theta and t, we have the related choices:
x'(\theta,t) = \left( x(\theta,t) - v t \right) \gamma = \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \\ y'(\theta,t) = y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta \\ t'(\theta,t) = \left( t - \frac{v x(\theta,t)}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t

\begin{array}{rclrclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{-c \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & ct \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{\frac{v}{c} \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & - c t \, \sin \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & c t \, \cos \theta \\ \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \sin \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \sin \theta \end{array}

So how fast is light moving in the unprimed frame (holding theta constant)?
\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y}{\partial t} \right)^2} = c
And in the unprimed frame?
\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2 + \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2} = c

So is the light moving towards the origin in the primed frame?
\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \right) \left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) + \left( ct \, \sin \theta \right) \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) = \frac{c^2 t (v-c \cos \theta)^2}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2} (c-v \cos \theta)} + \frac{c^2 t \sqrt{c^2 - v^2} \sin^2 \theta}{c - v \cos \theta} = \frac{c^2 t (c-v \cos \theta)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} > 0
Of course not. Only someone without the ability to understand special relativity would think so. Only someone who doesn't understand calculus would calculate so.
This handwaving:

Let's see, we are viewing the SLW propagating along a fixed y line with z = 0 in the unprimed frame.

So, applying the partial derivative with y and z fixed is natural and normal. That is the first place you are confused.

The paper applied the partial derivative correctly. Now, if the partial derivative is false, then make that statement so you can be corrected.

You then make the statement that holding y fixed and z = 0 is not a legitimate wan to analyze the SLW. I suggest you take a freshmen course in calculus to gain a better understanding of the partial derivative and it applications.

Now, if the partial derivative in the paper is false, prove that which means you will prove calculus is false.

But, that is the problem set up by the author.

Both calculus and SR cannot be true.
Does not constitute an effective rebuttal of RPenner's criticism.

[chinglu]

Here, RPenners glorious post:

This handwaving:

Does not constitute an effective rebuttal of RPenner's criticism.

No, the Rpenner logic claimed one cannot use the partial derivative.

This violates logic.

Do you agree with RPenner?

[AlexG]

There's no further point to this. One might as well argue with a tree stump.

[chinglu]

Here, RPenners glorious post:

This handwaving:

Does not constitute an effective rebuttal of RPenner's criticism.

Here, RPenner made this statement.

"So how fast is light moving in the unprimed frame (holding theta constant)?"

Can you explain how theta is constant when y and z are fixed?

That is a very simple logic error.

[chinglu]

There's no further point to this. One might as well argue with a tree stump.

You can use math which you can't.

So, retreat.

[Trippy]

No, the Rpenner logic claimed one cannot use the partial derivative.

This violates logic.

Do you agree with RPenner?

No, he certainly did not.

He stated that Banks had done so wrongly:



...
4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because "\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0 and \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} > 0 and x' < 0 are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.
...


Then demonstrated how to find the partial derivatives correctly:



Partial derivatives are only partial derivatives

Now we can take partial derivatives of these expressions, remembering to do the work Mr Banks ignored:
\begin{array}{rclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{c - \frac{v x}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & 0 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{\frac{cx}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} - v}{c \sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{x}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \\ \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{- v y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & 1 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \end{array}

And then demonstrated that the conclusions subsequently drawn were wrong:


So here we can see that even though \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0, \frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} < 0 and so the sign of \partial x' is indeterminate unless we add a constraint on \partial x \, , \; \partial y. Mr. Banks sees to hold y constant, but then he is no longer describing the propagation of rays of light but where the expanding sphere of light meets the line y = y_g which is akin to a searchlight beam hitting a wall and not akin to a particle. Like a spot on the wall lit up by a laser pointer, it is not constrained to move slower than light.
\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = c \sqrt{1 + \frac{y^2_g}{x^2}} > c

[Trippy]

You can use math which you can't.

So, retreat.
You're trolling.

[AlexG]

Cranks live in their own little world. Reality need not intrude.

[arfa brane]

So, the calculus stands. As a testament to idiocy.

[chinglu]

No, he certainly did not.

He stated that Banks had done so wrongly:



Then demonstrated how to find the partial derivatives correctly:



And then demonstrated that the conclusions subsequently drawn were wrong:

OK, you defended the Rpenner statement:


4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because ", if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that and and are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.

Can you explain precisely how the article misused calculus as RPenner asserted?

Finally, can you prove as the light wave propagates between the origins of the two frames, it does not move toward the primed origin?

I see you believe in your case and know you are correct. So, present a picture of the events and prove with a picture that shows in between the origins that if the SLW propagates away from the unprimed origin that it also propagates away from the primed origin along a fixed y line with the invariance of the light like space time interval.

[chinglu]

As a testament to idiocy.

Let's see your math for your position.

[chinglu]

Cranks live in their own little world. Reality need not intrude.

Let's see your math for your position.

[arfa brane]

I'm still waiting for your mathematical proof that shows all the measurements ever made of the propagation of light, are wrong.

Let's start with Maxwell, say.

But, you aren't going to even try, are you? You just want attention.
You want the world to believe you're some kind of genius, right?

I'd start again, though, because so far you've only managed to look like a complete idiot.

[chinglu]

Where is RPenner. These worshipping RPenner crackpot disciples that do not know anything are tiring.

[OnlyMe]

Let's see your math for your position.

First, you have really livened things up. I've having a good time catching up.

Now, the question...

You have been doing a great deal of challenging people to show there math and yet I don't recollect you showing any yourself.

[chinglu]

I'm still waiting for your mathematical proof that shows all the measurements ever made of the propagation of light, are wrong.

Let's start with Maxwell, say.

What?

The paper proved the light postulate cannot be satisified in both frames.

That was the goal. Can you use math and prove the paper false?

[AlexG]

Cranks and reality don't mix.

[chinglu]

First, you have really livened things up. I've having a good time catching up.

Now, the question...

You have been doing a great deal of challenging people to show there math and yet I don't recollect you showing any yourself.

The paper shows the math. Now what?

[Trippy]

Can you explain precisely how the article misused calculus as RPenner asserted?
Here's a better idea, and this is how science works.

Can you refute RPenner's statements? Can you demonstrate that it was done correctly?


Finally, can you prove as the light wave propagates between the origins of the two frames, it does not move toward the primed origin?
I don't need to - RPenner has already demonstrated this.

If you think RPenner's assertions are wrong, it's up to you to disprove them.


I see you believe in your case and know you are correct.
Belief has nothing to do with this conversation - only what I infer on the basis of experimental evidence, among other things.

We're discussing science, not philosophy or religion, belief has nothing to do with it.


So, present a picture of the events and prove with a picture that shows in between the origins that if the SLW propagates away from the unprimed origin that it also propagates away from the primed origin along a fixed y line with the invariance of the light like space time interval.
No.

Refute RPenner's post, or admit you were wrong.

[chinglu]

Cranks and reality don't mix.


Agreed,SR has been proven false and all those that follow it are cranks.

[AlexG]

For that matter, instead of referring to someone else's work, show your own.

[arfa brane]

Where's my brain when I need one?

[AlexG]

Refute RPenner's post, or admit you were wrong.

It will never happen.

[chinglu]

Here's a better idea, and this is how science works.

Can you refute RPenner's statements? Can you demonstrate that it was done correctly?


I don't need to - RPenner has already demonstrated this.

If you think RPenner's assertions are wrong, it's up to you to disprove them.


Belief has nothing to do with this conversation - only what I infer on the basis of experimental evidence, among other things.

We're discussing science, not philosophy or religion, belief has nothing to do with it.


No.

Refute RPenner's post, or admit you were wrong.

Refute RPenner's post, or admit you were wrong.

I did refute it.

I am waiting on his comeback. In fact, I killed his math.

Now,if you would like to take his position and understand and prove his case, then have at it.

So, far we have a correct application of the partial derivative and that refutes SR.

Can you add something?

[AlexG]

Waving your hands and saying 'Nah Nah Nah' is not refuting rpenner's math.

Show us your own work.

[Emil]

And as I promised I will give the evidence of no length contraction.
Study careful the next device.
Laser rangefinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_rangefinder): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Military_Laser_rangefinder_LRB20000.jpg/220px-Military_Laser_rangefinder_LRB20000.jpg
I will highlight only the most important parts.

1) Laser rangefinder,Precision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_rangefinder#Precision):

Precision
The precision of the instrument is determined by the rise or fall time of the laser pulse and the speed of the receiver. One that uses very sharp laser pulses and has a very fast detector can range an object to within a few millimeters.
Why depends on the speed of the receiver ?
Since the speed of light relative to the receiver is not constant but depends on the speed of the receiver.

2) The difference of speed of light due to different atmospheric conditions (temperature, pressure, humidity) is within the error of precision given by the manufacturer.
If there is length contraction, then the error at different speed of light would be much higher.
Do the calculations yourself.

3) But exactly the same device is used for mapping the ocean floor.(Bathymetric maps) with the device called Bathometer.
Laser-Bathometer: http://img.directindustry.de/images_di/photo-m2/laser-bathometer-fur-flugzeugeinbau-208473.jpg

This devices takes into account only the speed of light in water but not length contraction, and yet works.
Try to convince the manufacturers of these devices to consider the length contraction for their devices.They would not even bother to answer.
For that length contraction is only pseudoscience.

[James R]

Special relativity is refuted by chinglu?

You mean like last time?

Hahahaha!

Notice, by the way, that the linked thread was unfinished, because chinglu slunk away from his disgrace there.

If you want to take matters up where you left off, chinglu, start by replying to this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2710952&postcount=358).

[Emil]

Special relativity is refuted by chinglu?
No.

If you want to take matters up where you left off, chinglu, start by replying to this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2710952&postcount=358).
No. I don't want.

I said several times and I pointed out that has nothing to do with math.Who starts on this path, make a strategic mistake.
The only problem is the speed of light relative to a moving object.
(http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2792071#post2792071)

[OnlyMe]

Why depends on the speed of the receiver ?

A laser range finder uses light pulses and measures the time a sequece takes to bounce back. The receiver has to be fast to provide fined detail accuracy. Actually that is the same way radar works. The difference is that with light your signal is better confined and the speed of light is affected less by atmospheric conditions than would sonar or radar.

They can be designed to report velocity and direction as well as range. Lidar is another specialized application.

[AlexG]

Since the speed of light relative to the receiver is not constant but depends on the speed of the receiver.



Fail.

The same crap over and over and over.

[Captain Kremmen]

@ Emil. Laser Rangefinder precision. Your Quote.
Precision
The precision of the instrument is determined by the rise or fall time of the laser pulse and the speed of the receiver. One that uses very sharp laser pulses and has a very fast detector can range an object to within a few millimeters.


Yes, that quote is correct, but for the following two reasons:

1. Speed of Calculation
If the object is moving, and the detector takes time to make a calculation, then the detector will be working out where the object was, not where it is.

2. Speed of pulse.
Say the pulses were one per second, if the object was moving at 20 MPH
then by the time the rangefinder sent its next pulse, the object could have travelled 30 feet, or it could have stopped.

The inaccuracies are due to the efficiency of the computer, and the number of pulses per second, not variations in the speed of light.

[Emil]

1. Speed of Calculation
If the object is moving, and the detector takes time to make a calculation, then the detector will be working out where the object was, not where it is.

Yes, I agree with that.

But,
I argue that the relativ speed of laser pulses to the receiver is different when the laser pulses direction is to the target so the same as the receiver,
and when thel laser pulses return from the target, so is contrary to the receiver speed.
It cannot have the same constant speed relative to the target that is stationary and relative to the receiver that is in motion.
You assert that the speed is the same, and I disagree.

[Captain Kremmen]

I didn't get that.
Can you give an example?

[Captain Kremmen]

Re Light v Sound Waves.


Another difference is that the propagation velocity of sound waves increases with the density of the medium through which it propagates increases, where the propagation velocity of light increases as the density of the medium decreases.

In the extremes.., light propagates through a vacuum where sound may not pass and sound propagates through solids where light may not pass.

Given that atoms are mostly empty space, what stops photons from passing straight through them?

[Emil]

I didn't get that.
Can you give an example?

Just like the relative speed between a moving object and the sound waves.

[przyk]

Let me see if I understand you.

Are you claiming that the spherical light wave does not propagate along a y line that is fixed and z = 0?
Points propagate along lines. The spherical light wave is a surface propagating outward in all directions. It is possible to imagine fictional points moving around that expanding surface in such a way that their y and z coordinates stay the same, and the speed of such a point could be faster than c. Then so what? As long as it is only imaginary points moving faster than light, there's no problem.


And, yes, you are correct, the intersections occur daster than the spedd of light.

So what.
So nothing.


I see you were unable to refute this calculus fact.
More than one person in this thread has already refuted the relevance of your "calculus".

[Captain Kremmen]

Just like the relative speed between a moving object and the sound waves.

That isn't an example.

[OnlyMe]

Given that atoms are mostly empty space, what stops photons from passing straight through them?

It would seem that they should be able to do just that.

The model for absorption and re-emission is a quantum model attempting to explain refractive indexes.., why light slows down passing through a transparent medium. I have never been able to or had anyone provide a credible answer to my original concern regarding the apparent conflicts involving known emission and absorption spectrums of individual elements and the lack of the same within that quantum model.

Space is supposed to be "empty" and thus the same everywhere. The speed of light c, if constant in a vacuum, "empty space" should be the same passing through the "empty" space between atoms as through any empty space.

I think the real problem is that if one assumes that a photon can pass through the empty space between atoms, without being affected by the absorption/re-emission process, then that "empty space" would have to be "different" than "empty space" generally.

There would have to be something about empty space that is variable and affects the velocity of light. It kinda sorta leads back toward an aether model or requires an assumption that the shape of space is changed sufficiently to affect the speed of light. It presents a potentially significant challenge to the universal aspect of the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum (i.e. empty space).

A universally constant c has become so interwoven with our paradigm(s) of how the universe works that even a change to an only locally constant value threatens a great deal of what we believe.

[OnlyMe]

Just like the relative speed between a moving object and the sound waves.

The mechanics of light and sound cannot be modeled as equivalent. There are too many differences between how then two interact, with the environment in any given environment.

A laser range finder system can detect the velocity of an object, but it does it in a different way than sonar systems.

For a sonar system the difference in the velocity of sound and any object in motion consistent with everyday experience is not so great that a moving object does not change the timing interval between reflected pulses. Sonar is not efficient at determining an objects velocity by that method, because too many environmentally related conditions can affect, the Doppler aspect of reflected sound waves. Instead the object's position from one pulse or pulse series to the next, is compared and from the change in position and elapsed time, its velocity extrapolated.

For a laser ranger finder and/or Lidar system velocity can be calculated based on the Doppler effect, that an objects velocity has on the reflected light pulses. I am not an expert on Lidar, but my understanding is that the Doppler measurement is carried out similar to an interferometer process than a direct measurement.

[OnlyMe]

Laser-Bathometer

Give us a link to the specs for the device you refer to here, an image is insufficient to make your case.

Most bathometers operate in a range of a few hundred kHz (radio frequencies) not the THz range of light.

Radio frequencies penetrate water more efficiently than does light and provides the effective range in water to actually map the ocean floor, beyond the depth that light penetrates.

[CptBork]

The assumption of length contraction in combination with time dilation provides a very simple method for predicting how angles change between varying reference frames. For example, in a particle collider you can tune the beam energies so that the equivalent centre-of-mass energy stays constant as the beam energies change, and in this manner you can predict particle scattering rates at various energies just by knowing the values at one particular energy level, without requiring any knowledge about the specific underlying mechanics.

[Emil]

Give us a link to the specs for the device you refer to here, an image is insufficient to make your case.

I recommend Google.
Or try subsea laser rangefinder.
I do not want you lacking the pleasure of seeking.


Radio frequencies penetrate water more efficiently than does light and provides the effective range in water to actually map the ocean floor, beyond the depth that light penetrates.
What?!? ....never mind, isn't the theme of this thread.

[AlexG]

The speed of light is not relative to moving objects. It is invarient, no matter what the relative movment.

This, of course, is the basis for Relativity deniers, such as Motor Daddy and Emil. It is a subject which has been flogged to death innumerable times.

[OnlyMe]

I recommend Google.
Or try subsea laser rangefinder.
I do not want you lacking the pleasure of seeking.

Is this a dodge? Do you have a specific reference that details how the picture you posted of a laser-bothometer functions?

I asked for a link because when I search for the object of your posts I get no functional detail. Granted it may be my error. Still since it is an important aspect of your argument you must have a specific site to reference.


What?!? ....never mind, isn't the theme of this thread.

Right it does not fit the theme. It is consistent with how, "most" bathometers function. Show me a link to a site that demonstrates other wise and I will chalk my confussion up to an error in my own search criteria.

[Emil]

What is your opinion?
If I use a waterproof laser rangefinder underwater (I hope that really is waterproof and does not deteriorate) to determine the distance to a target what is located to 5m underwater,
how many meters will show my device?

[OnlyMe]

What is your opinion?

My opinion is that I am still waiting for a link. Or at least a credible citation.

[Captain Kremmen]

@Only Me
You might like this youtube video.
"Why is glass Transparent" by Phil Moriarty,
Sixty Symbols regular Professor Phil Moriarty discusses transparent glass and the so-called energy gap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omr0JNyDBI0

[OnlyMe]

@Only Me
You might like this youtube video.
"Why is glass Transparent" by Phil Moriarty,
Sixty Symbols regular Professor Phil Moriarty discusses transparent glass and the so-called energy gap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omr0JNyDBI0

Captain, that was actually a good presentation of the absorption/re-emission model. It doesn't really address the issue I meant to be raising.

Say you have, water clear glass composed of pure SO2 and a light source that does not include visible light within the absorption bands of the "glass". When applying the absorption/re-emission model each photon is absorbed and re-emitted without causing a shift in the electron energy state. That is assumed to result in the emitted photon being exactly the same as the absorbed photon. The difficulty here it seems is that this also assumes no heat or kinetic transfer is involved in this kind of transmission.

If this is the case it is no different than if the photon were to pass through the glass without any interaction with its atomic and molecular structure. If it is not the case it means that the transition is lossless, in terms of heat and kinetic energy.

It is difficult to grasp the idea that this interaction can occur in a 100% efficient transfer. Even just the slight time delay associated with the absorption/re-emission process should have some impact on the energy level of the atom and though that time interval is small if there is any interaction at least some portion should be transferred to molecularly associated and yet other wise uninvolved atoms. There should be some energy loss. Which should affect the re-emitted light in some way.

The absorption/re-emission model is reasonable and logical. Yet, it does not address any potential energy loss/transfer that may take place during the process.

If there is any energy transfer, the re-emitted photon cannot be the same as the absorbed photon.

Obviously we cannot watch this process occur in any direct manner. Though the theory is, as I said, both reasonable and logical, it does not address the issue I meant to be raising.

[Emil]

@OnlyMe,

I cannot give you everything. You need to know to searching yourself.
I can give you only a few clues.

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es0501/es0501page03.cfm:

While various types of microscopes can reveal details at many levels of magnification, no microscope can produce images showing the detailed parts of single atoms. For understanding atoms at this level, we traditionally use models instead of actual images.
The models presented in this investigation show a highly simplified view of atoms, but they serve the purpose of allowing us to examine the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in common elements.

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys05/catomodel/default.htm: (Please be careful to understand what a model.)

The Rutherford Model
(http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys05/catomodel/ruther.htm)The Bohr Model (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys05/catomodel/bohr.htm)
The Cloud Model (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys05/catomodel/cloud.htm)

Even though these models are different, neither one excludes the other two. Accepting one model does not cancel out the other two. It is possible to accept all three models at the same time.
Some people extend these models over reality and they extend the model properties on the material objects, what is wrong.

[OnlyMe]

Emil, those links were for atomic model, what I was asking for is some link to specs on the Laser-Bathometer. I was unable to locate any technical detail and question the effectiveness of using light to range distance in water, as even in clear water penetration drops of rapidly after 10 meters to essentially nothing at 100. (for visible light)

[Emil]

Emil, those links were for atomic model, what I was asking for is some link to specs on the Laser-Bathometer. I was unable to locate any technical detail and question the effectiveness of using light to range distance in water, as even in clear water penetration drops of rapidly after 10 meters to essentially nothing at 100. (for visible light)

http://www.optech.ca/prodshoals.htm
http://www.optech.ca/pdf/SHOALS3000_SpecSheet_110708web.pdf

[origin]

http://www.optech.ca/prodshoals.htm
http://www.optech.ca/pdf/SHOALS3000_SpecSheet_110708web.pdf

So just for clarification; you think that this is somehow related to length contraction?

[OnlyMe]

http://www.optech.ca/prodshoals.htm
http://www.optech.ca/pdf/SHOALS3000_SpecSheet_110708web.pdf

Thanks for the links. The info confirms my main issue with the technology for use in water.

From the two links the technical specs show a maximum effective depth of 50 meters and that the system is most useful in shallow water.


Cost-effective in shallow water; collects dense data sets where acoustic surveying is least efficient

Maps extremely shallow water <5 m; no change in vertical accuracy or sounding density

It does clarify and correct one of my concerns, as providing an increase in effectiveness over acoustic systems in shallow water.

Another advantage it seems is the ability to make shallow water sea floor surveys from an aircraft. This would be a great advantage time and probably cost wise.

It doesn't really address at least a portion of the initial conversation. The system above actually compares the timing between two separate light pulses, one IR reflected from the surface and the other blue-green that penetrates and is reflected from the sea floor.

This does not involve either a Doppler or speed of light effect. It essentially assumes the known speed of light in air and water and probably that the IR and blue-green light travels at the same velocity since the difference in the water over such a short distance should not significantly affect the comparison.

Thanks again for the links.

[Emil]

So just for clarification; you think that this is somehow related to length contraction?
Just there is no length contraction.
Neither for the air nor for the water.

[origin]

Just there is no length contraction.
Neither for the air nor for the water.

You have no clue what length contraction is, do you?

For a MASS traveling at relativistic speeds there certainly is. Light traveling through water or air has noting to due with length contraction.

[OnlyMe]

Just there is no length contraction.
Neither for the air nor for the water.

If you are talking about relativistic length contraction, I will tell a bit of an embarrassing tale on myself.

A while back when the final GP-B report was issued, while I was reviewing the report (and without thinking it through) it struck me that length contraction could be involved in a portion of their data. As I said, without thinking it through, I shot off an e-mail to the author, asking if they had accounted for potential length contraction... To my surprise I received a reply within a couple of hours, and it was thanksgiving day. The answer pointed out that even at the distance involved (far greater than those we are here talking about and would. not affect distances) for the relative differences in velocity between the speed of light and the spacecraft (in our case here the airplane and the sea floor) length contraction would be such an exponentially small fraction of the involved distances/lengths involved that it would be far outside of our ability to detect and too small to affect the data at hand.

For our purposes, length contraction can only be applied to moving objects, not light itself or distances. And then only when the velocities are relativistic. In the case we were discussing neither the plane, the bathometer, the water's surface nor the sea floor were moving relative to one another with anything near relativistic velocities.

The whole length contraction issue does at times get confussing as we have both a perceived length contraction involving frames of reference in motion relative to one another and an assumed real length contraction of an object moving at relativistic velocities.

[Emil]

You have no clue what length contraction is, do you?

For a MASS traveling at relativistic speeds there certainly is. Light traveling through water or air has noting to due with length contraction.

So for the photon travels at different speeds no different length contraction?

[Emil]

...for the relative differences in velocity between the speed of light and the spacecraft (in our case here the airplane and the sea floor)
If you can explain in more detail what you mean?

[OnlyMe]

If you can explain in more detail what you mean?

First: The example was not realLy a clear representation of the e-mail exchange. As I said without thinking it through... I had associated the distances involved as perhaps adding some length contraction to the data they were using. That was just flat out a brain fart!

Where length contraction is concerned there are two ways that it comes up in special relativity. The first has to do with the whole foundation of the concept of Realativity itself and involves how observers in two separate inertial frames of refrence that are moving relative to one another see each other. Each sees the other as moving and teirself as at rest. If the difference in their velocities is a significant fraction of the speed of light they also appear to one another as shorter than they actually are. Working out the difference and reconciling the way each sees things, involves mathematics originally proposed by Lorentz and Fitgerald, to resolve an unrelated problem. Einstein, incorporated the work repurposed into special relativity in 1905 and called the equations the Loentz Transformations. This application of the equations is applied to convert what one observer sees into an understanding of what it would look like from another frame of reference.

The second situation involves an object, a physical object in motion and more closely resembles the original intent of Lorentz and FitzGerald, which by the way Einstein at leastbinitial thought was ridiculous (my words). In this case an object's velocity affects it's length in the direction it is moving by shortening it. The object becomes length contracted in line with the direction itbis moving. The effect is not measurable until the objects velocity approaches the speed of light. Like half, tree quarters, etc.

The first is an example of a perceived length contraction, though depending upon one's perspective even that is often debated.

The second is an example of a real length contraction, of a moving object. Though it has never been confirmed apart from mathematical models and interpreted results of a few different experiments in particle physics.

Neither can be applied to the situation we were discussing with the range finders.

And yes, this may ignite a whole new discussion as I am sure that there are aspects of my explanation that can or could be questioned.

Right now I am out of time as I have company, just arrived and must attend to guests.

[Emil]

What is your opinion about:
Einstein denied that Newton could ever be superseded by his own work.
Theory of relativity,Scope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#Scope)

[OnlyMe]

What is your opinion about:
Theory of relativity,Scope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#Scope)

Einstein was in that context referring to Newtin's field equation for gravity, which is consitent locally with observation. Locally in this context includes the orbits of the known (at that time) planets and the moon, with the exception of the perihelion advancement of Mercury.

Einstein's own field equations reduce to agreement with Newtin's in that local frame of reference.

As mentioned, Newton's equations do not explain the perihelion advancement of Mercury's orbit or gravitational lensing. Still, they are used even by NASA today. Well maybe not NASA since it is pretty much out of business for a while... (that was an intentional exaggeration)

I believe, but it has been a while, that Newton was aware of the perihelion advancement issue. Not sure if that was with respect to Mercury's orbit.

As far as how they each understood space and time there is significant difference and disagreement.

[Emil]

As far as how they each understood space and time there is significant difference and disagreement.
I agree.
But something about this? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2793043#post2793043

[OnlyMe]

I agree.
But something about this? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2793043#post2793043

Which post?

The laser range finder, as in bathometer you referred to earlier works from outside the water, from a plane flying over. It would tell you the object was 5m from the surface of the water, if that is where it was. The bathometer would not function under water. In that case sonar would be better and it would tell you the object was 5m away.

Ah, you were referring to the Captain's link.
As for the link The Captain provided... It is a good lay explanation of the absorption/re-emission model for light moving through a transparent medium.

I still have questions about that model that have yet been explained. Still it is probably the best recognized explanation for what happens.

[origin]

So for the photon travels at different speeds no different length contraction?

That is correct whether a photon is traveling through vacuum, air, water or glass it has nothing to do with lenght contraction.

That is really pretty humorus; you are convinced that scientist are wrong and length contraction does not exist, even though you don't even know what lenght contraction is.:D

[Emil]

That is correct whether a photon is traveling through vacuum, air, water or glass it has nothing to do with lenght contraction.

That is really pretty humorus; you are convinced that scientist are wrong and length contraction does not exist, even though you don't even know what lenght contraction is.:D
How can you know something about something that does not exist?

[origin]

How can you know something about something that does not exist?

You have just demonstrated that you haven't the slightest idea what length contraction is, so your learned reply is "it does not exist"? Yikes! You don't even know what it is.

Your ideas seem to have originated from an individual whos typical attire may include very large shoes, bright baggy clothes and a large, red, round nose.;)

[OnlyMe]

How can you know something about something that does not exist?

Emil,

Two things. First without getting to involved are you asking serious questions? From your perspective.

Second, we do know photons, light exists. Without it or them we would not need eyes. The wave/particle character of light is amlittle more difficult, but still even then measureable on both accounts. One involve ing how experiments with light affect what we see and the other how the particle or photon affects the atoms in some materials in the photo electric effect.

I am willing to discuss these things with you, in a civil and respectful manner, if what you are looking for is some real understanding of what "we" have come to understand about light and photons. If on the other hand you are so attached to some metaphysical perspective or some other fixed point of view, there would really be no purpose discussion.

[rpenner]

Emil is, I believe, insisting, contrary to empirical evidence gathered (in increasing volumes and increasingly important to ordinary technology) since 1859 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2039656#post2039656), that there is no length contraction, even though special relativity explains why gold is not silver-colored (http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/).

It's this attitude problem he has with reality, shared with chinglu and Motor Daddy, which has consigned this thread to the Pseudoscience sub-forum. They don't have an alternative model to compete against physics -- they reject the very facts physics seeks to model. They have failed to advance any communicable, precise and useful description of reality because they would rather abuse facts, logic and math than make use of them. The very existence of this thread traces to the bizarre and hypocritical authority-based claim "the article used calculus" from post #8.

When presented with more and better multivariable calculus, geometry and physics (like the common experience both light and inertially moving objects travel in straight lines), the first reaction is denial and ridicule of our comprehension of subjects they have not mastered. Posts #56 and #58. Chinglu ignores the content of the rebuttals, quotes them verbatim, and repeats the original (now debunked) argument which he never understood.

As I wrote in May 2010 to at least some of these same posters:

Inability to comprehend relativity is the inability to put oneself intellectually into the shoes of another and working out the consequences. It seems to me that this belongs on the non-clinical side of a spectrum of sociopathic disorders.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2540723#post2540723


We know you love to pontificate, but the universe doesn't care what your opinion is or how forcefully you assert it. Repeated claims are not proof.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the physics is in the doing and comparing to nature. ... And when you refuse to be informed by experiment is why all your posts are Pseudoscience at best.

No doubt a physics textbook raped you as a child or killed your dog and that is why you hate physics so much, but it does not make for interesting conversation that you literally ignore the whole of the universe to talk only about the world inside your head.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2545726&postcount=160

[Emil]

You have just demonstrated that you haven't the slightest idea what length contraction is, so your learned reply is "it does not exist"? Yikes! You don't even know what it is.

I showed that there is no length contraction.
What is your contra argument? "You do not know length contraction."-hilarious.

That is correct whether a photon is traveling through vacuum, air, water or glass it has nothing to do with lenght contraction.

Absolutely correct. That was my goal.
Regardless of the speed of the particle, there's no length contraction.
The same for muons.

[AlexG]

I showed that there is no length contraction.
What is your contra argument? "You do not know length contraction."-hilarious.

No, what you showed is that you don't understand what length contraction is, and what you are discussing and think you have refuted is not relativistic length contraction.


Regardless of the speed of the particle, there's no length contraction.
The same for muons.

This contradicts observation and experimentation. You are simply wrong.

[Emil]

rpenner is one who demonstrates on mathematical way (more complicated the better) that he is right.
The most efficient explanation was made by James R in this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95873) thread.

The calculations are correct! The premises are false.
I showed the speed of light relative to a moving object depends on the speed of the object, in this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2753397#post2753397) thread.

I believe that the technology used for rangfinder is already enough to prove the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speed of the object, which will be the end of the SR.

[AlexG]

rpenner is one who demonstrates on mathematical way (more complicated the better) that he is right.
The most efficient explanation was made by James R in this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95873) thread.

The calculations are correct! The premises are false.
I showed the speed of light relative to a moving object depends on the speed of the object, in this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2753397#post2753397) thread.

I believe that the technology used for rangfinder is already enough to prove the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speed of the object, which will be the end of the SR.

Again: This contradicts observation and experimentation. You are simply wrong.

It is of course, one of the defining hallmarks of the crackpot, they ignore reality and continue to insist they are right. All you have done is demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about in any sense.

[Emil]

No, what you showed is that you don't understand what length contraction is, and what you are discussing and think you have refuted is not relativistic length contraction.


Yes, your argument is "You don't know length contraction."
As I said, hilarious.

[AlexG]

But you don't. You've quite clearly demonstrated that. You don't know what relativistic length contraction is. Nothing you've posted deals with it in any way.

[AlexG]

However...

Arguing with a crank - useless

[Emil]

Again: This contradicts observation and experimentation. You are simply wrong.

It is of course, one of the defining hallmarks of the crackpot, they ignore reality and continue to insist they are right. All you have done is demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about in any sense.

If you don't understand, that's it . This is not a problem.
There are others who understand what I'm talking about.

[OnlyMe]

I believe that the technology used for rangfinder is already enough to prove the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speed of the object, which will be the end of the SR.

Emil, laser range finders don't work that way. Most of the use a fated version of the same principles applied in sonar. They send out a short series of pulses and time how long they take to get back. Dicier that time by 2 and compare the resulting time to the know distance light would travel in that time.

While there are a few very high end systems that do use incorporate Doppler effects, that still does not involve length contraction.

Length contraction does not apply to distances or photons, it applies only to material objects and even then is only measurable if the object is moving a significant fraction of the speed of light.

The only materiel objects we can observe at such velocities are particles in particle accelerators and in that case the evidence seems to support length contraction.

[Emil]

@OnlyMe
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2760573#post2760573

[AlexG]

Nonresponsive garbage.

Pretty typical of a crank.

They call them cranks because they keep going round and round and never get anywhere.

[origin]

I believe that the technology used for rangfinder is already enough to prove the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speed of the object, which will be the end of the SR.

You believe that because you do not understand how a range finer works. The rangefinder depends on the speed of light being constant.

Just becasuse you are unable to understand something, that does not make it wrong - it just makes it over your head.

[Emil]

You believe that because you do not understand how a range finer works.
You would want!
I think you do not understand the syntax of "the technology used for rangfinder"
When I have time I will describe the device.

[origin]

When I have time I will describe the device.

I'm looking forward to it - thanks.

[Emil]

Description of operating principle of the device.

http://www.bosch-pt.com/productspecials/professional/dle50/uk/en/start/index.htm

Bosch Professional Laser Rangefinder DLE 50
Measurement range: 0.05 - 50 m
Typ. measurement accuracy +/- 1.5 mm

This means that the technology used here allows the measurement of a interval of distance 1.5 mm and a clock, accurate enough to determine a time intervals equal with the time required for the light to travel 1.5mm.
I think this precision is enough .

Make a support of 10 m (or more), which can rotate 360 degrees.
I mount on this support a laser that emits a pulse every 0.1 s.
I mount on this support at 10 m distance from the laser (or more) a receiver.
The receiver has two operating modes: synchronizing and measuring.
He has an internal clock that starts every 0.1 s.
In synchronizing mode, set the clock to 0 when it receives a laser pulse.
In measurement mode displays the internal clock when it receives a laser pulse.

After the receiver has been synchronized with the laser and the laser pulse has traveled the 10 m (or more) in an equal time as the synchronization laser pulse, clock will show 0 s.
If the laser pulse will reach faster the clock will show 0.999999 s.
If the laser pulse will arrive later time will show 0.000001 s.

After I synchronized the laser with the receiver,I rotate the support in different positions, to get 360 gradient, where the clock should show again 0 s.(That demonstrates that the two clocks were not out of synchronizing.)

I am sure that the clock will show different times at different degrees.

[AlexG]

What do you think you're demonstrating with a laser rangefinder? It depends on the fact that the speed of light is consistent.


"Time of flight - this measures the time taken for a light pulse to travel to the target and back. With the speed of light known, and an accurate measurement of the time taken, the distance can be calculated. Many pulses are fired sequentially and the average response is most commonly used. This technique requires very accurate sub-nanosecond timing circuitry."

[Joe Green]

I'm looking forward to it - thanks.

Don't hold your breath.

[OnlyMe]

@OnlyMe
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2760573#post2760573

Emil, I saw nothing new in that post.

Personally I don't have any issue with anyone expressing skepticism with respect to an as yet unobserved, prediction of a well established and accepted theory. In this case SR and GR. (and yes this statement may generate a critical response from some). Personally, I have some unanswered questions involving both SR and GR, and I generally approach most of what we discuss in these forums from the perspective of SR and GR.

The problem for me is, that you do not seem to be questioning length contraction. It appears more as if you are attempting to outright refute or deny it. That is where the real problem from my point of view lies. The reason is that other than in some results within the context of the interpretation of observations involving high enegy particles and particle accelerators, we have no observational or experimental evidence to support the prediction of length contraction. We also have no observational or experimental evidence that disproves it.

In the mean time the prediction that length contraction does occur is derived from theory that has other wise been proven an accurate model consistent with experience. Both GR and SR have been extremely successful and length contraction is consistent with the mathematical models upon which they are based.

I can honestly say that I do have some reservations myself concerning the issue of length contraction. Reservations and even unanswered questions are not the same as disproof. Sometimes it is no more than a matter of not fully understanding then issue or phenomena.

Length contraction fits well with a number of other observations that can be accepted as proven. The fact that I, you or anyone else may still have questions is not equivalent to having disproved anything. For my own part it may only be that I have yet to understand fully those things I now question.

[origin]

I am sure that the clock will show different times at different degrees.

Why?

[Emil]

Why?

As the Earth moves and the speed is a vector that has value and orientation.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light is perpendicular to the orientation of the vector of the speed of the earth I'll measure the value of the speed light.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light has the same orientation as the orientation of the vector of the speed of the Earth I'll measure the difference between the value of speed of light and the value of the speed of Earth.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light has the opposite orientation as the orientation of the vector of the speed of the Earth I'll measure the sum between the value of speed of light and the value of the speed of Earth.

[OnlyMe]

As the Earth moves and the speed is a vector that has value and orientation.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light is perpendicular to the orientation of the vector of the speed of the earth I'll measure the value of the speed light.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light has the same orientation as the orientation of the vector of the speed of the Earth I'll measure the difference between the value of speed of light and the value of the speed of Earth.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light has the opposite orientation as the orientation of the vector of the speed of the Earth I'll measure the sum between the value of speed of light and the value of the speed of Earth.

This sounds like it is a repeat of the Michelson and Morley experiments, where using an interferometer they were attempting to measure the speed of the Earth relative to the Luminiferous Aether. The apparatus was essentially comparing the velocity of light relative to the Earth's motion in space. The experiments were carried out over the course of a year, to account for seasonal difference and at different times of the day. They found no change in the velocity of light outside of the margin of error for the equipment and conditions.

The experiment has been repeated many times since even as late as the early 1950's, (probably even later than that). One of my uncles, participated as a mathematician in one such series of experiments in the 50's.

There is a great deal of experimental evidence along these lines that supports the universal and constant nature of the speed of light. Lorentz and Fitzgerald both suggested length contract as a reason for the null results of the M&M experiments. Even Lorentz eventually came round to supporting SR as an alternate to his original position.

[Emil]

@OnlyMe,
Yes, indeed.
So far we haven't had a evolved sufficiently technology for such an experiment.
For this reason I said:

I believe that the technology used for rangfinder is already enough to prove the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speed of the object, which will be the end of the SR.

[origin]

As the Earth moves and the speed is a vector that has value and orientation.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light is perpendicular to the orientation of the vector of the speed of the earth I'll measure the value of the speed light.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light has the same orientation as the orientation of the vector of the speed of the Earth I'll measure the difference between the value of speed of light and the value of the speed of Earth.

When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light has the opposite orientation as the orientation of the vector of the speed of the Earth I'll measure the sum between the value of speed of light and the value of the speed of Earth.

As onlyme suggested this experiment has been carried out, thousands of times in fact. The orientation is different for the inferometers that are used in the measurements. However, they always get the same speed for light. So the experimental evidence says that the speed of the earth is not relevent to the speed of the light measurement. This is simply a fact. Do you think that the measurements are wrong? If so, why? If not how do you explain this?

edited to add: You believe that a hand held range finder is more accurate than the physic experiments that are done around the speed of light? Really?

[OnlyMe]

@OnlyMe,
Yes, indeed.
So far we haven't had a evolved sufficiently technology for such an experiment.
For this reason I said:

Emil, I have already commented on the laser ranger finder, as have several others. Find a new horse or present a new argument.

The laser range finder is a horse that won't run in this race. It just does not apply in the way you expect. If it did there would already be evidence to support your position. We have been bouncing laser light off of mirrors placed on the moon during the Apollo missions for years now and never has anything suggested support for your claims.

[Emil]

It is a huge difference between an experiment to measure round-trip
and an experiment to measure one way .
I have to explain why?

[OnlyMe]

It is a huge difference between an experiment to measure round-trip
and an experiment to measure one way .
I have to explain why?

No!

But then laser range finders also use the two way, round trip of light.

[Emil]

But then laser range finders also use the two way, round trip of light.
I do not use the rangefinder itself.
I use the technology that is used to build a rangfinder.
Such as the clock, rise time of the laser pulse, the time of perception of the receiver, ultra-fast electronics, etc. ...
Please read carefully the description of the device that I described.

[Emil]

@OnlyMe,

Now I realize that you did not understand my experiments.
Maybe my English is poor.
I try to explain the experiment with rangefinder.

A regular rangefinder that show 5 m from a target located to 5 m, on the land.
This is a waterproof rangefinder to use in wet conditions.
Now we put underwater the rangefinder and we hope it does not damage.
What do you think how much it will show the distance to the target that is 5 m distance to the rangefinder and it is also under water and?

[OnlyMe]

@OnlyMe,

Now I realize that you did not understand my experiments.
Maybe my English is poor.
I try to explain the experiment with rangefinder.

A regular rangefinder that show 5 m from a target located to 5 m, on the land.
This is a waterproof rangefinder to use in wet conditions.
Now we put underwater the rangefinder and we hope it does not damage.
What do you think how much it will show the distance to the target that is 5 m distance to the rangefinder and it is also under water and?

Emil, this has been asked and answered repeatedly by several posters. What I think is it will not show what you expect. There is nothing that you have posted that provide credible evidence to refute the position and comment I and others have given.

Until you provide some credible augment that demonstrates "our" position wrong. There is no purpose to continue the conversation.

[AlexG]

@OnlyMe,

Now I realize that you did not understand my experiments.
Maybe my English is poor.


It's not your English that's poor, it's your thinking that's poor.

[Emil]

It's not your English that's poor, it's your thinking that's poor.

Troll!http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRALi2J-kzR1hCBWQ_IvO0RcRiF-IY4b0Gyn513MYmUMIe3AnyP

[AlexG]

Self-portrait?

[Arioch]

I read most...well half...of the thread and I have two things to say. When the mathematics conflict with experimental results then the math is virtually always wrong(it could have been a flawed experiment, but the more experimental data you get the smaller the likely hood of that becomes). Mathematical models only have relevancy when they accurately describe reality as we observe it. If they don't then they are either wrong or irrelevant, either way empirical evidence always trumps mathematical models in science. As I'm fond of saying, in science the scientific method is god and empirical evidence is the pope.

The other thing is that if anyone here has legitimately proven relativity false then get yourself published for Atheismo's sake! Not only would you completely revolutionize physics as we know it, but you'd win about half a dozen prizes and upwards of a couple million bucks. The fact that such a paper has never been published, by anyone, indicates that no such disproof exists.

[James R]

Arioch,

You fail to take into account the worldwide conspiracy of physicists who view Einstein as a god and who don't allow disproofs of relativity to be published. All crackpots amateur relativity disprovers are aware of the grand conspiracy. :)

[Motor Daddy]

Arioch,

You fail to take into account the worldwide conspiracy of physicists who view Einstein as a god and who don't allow disproofs of relativity to be published. All crackpots amateur relativity disprovers are aware of the grand conspiracy. :)

That and the fact that a light source can travel a distance in the same time the light the source emitted travels. :shrug:

[quantum_wave]

I posted this elsewhere so why not here …

This thread seems familiar to several I have followed in different forums. I would like to mention two options that I think pertain to the issue of SR and this discussion. The two statements address what some might say about SR and “reality”, reality being akin to the foundational truth or the invariant laws of the universe, and some might stop short of that but say the SR is mathematically correct but does not correspond precisely to reality, :go figure:.

1) The math of SR works perfectly but then it should since it relates motion as observed in two inertial reference frames by using the speed of light as the common denominator in the Lorentz adjustment equations to calculate the variables (length and time) in each frame relative to those same variables in the other frame.

2) The math of SR works perfectly because it is a quantification of the foundational truth or “reality” of the universe. The light sphere that emanates from a single event and that is observed by different observers, one in each frame, will be observed as spherical and will expand at the speed of light in each frame, but the spheres in each frame will not be congruent in absolute space due to the relativity of simultaneity, i.e. there is no absolute space or absolute rest frame in “reality”.

What I think is that some of those who accept the mathematical soundness of SR will also say that they believe that SR is in fact reality, thus selecting both #1 and #2 from my two choices. Of course those people are not scientists since to science “reality” is a philosophical concept and under the scientific method one of the important strengths of science is tentativeness (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/10/5609.ars).

I accept #1 and not #2.

The Lorentz transformations should plot out a spherically expanding light wave front in the other frame because the observers in both frames are supposed to see the light expanding at c in all directions, i.e. the spherical wave front.

I would like to say that if I were to see a spherical light wave front expanding from a point of emission in my frame, which I will consider the rest frame, then I could easily imagine that the same event that causes the emission of my light sphere, if observed from moving frame will produce an oblate spheroid light wave front in the moving frame. Obviously this would violate Special Relativity because it would require a variable speed of light in the moving frame and that violates the postulates.

So in order for SR to be "reality", and in order for there to be a light sphere expanding in both frames, the point of emission must move with the frame. So the logic and reason used to imagine that my frame’s light sphere would appear as an oblate spheroid in the other frame is in error and I must imagine instead that the universe does not care what I think is logical. The point of emission is dependent on the relative motion of the inertial frames (moves with the frame) according to the math that reconciles the two SR postulates, i.e. according to Lorentz transformation.

That is why I say that the reason that the math works perfectly is because the length and time variables are transformed using the speed of light as the common denominator. Couldn't you get perfect math by using the speed of a zephyr if we knew what speed zephyrs fly and if we could assume that all zephyrs fly at the same speed (just being facetious).

[CptBork]

That is why I say that the reason that the math works perfectly is because the length and time variables are transformed using the speed of light as the common denominator. Couldn't you get perfect math by using the speed of a zephyr if we knew what speed zephyrs fly and if we could assume that all zephyrs fly at the same speed (just being facetious).

No it couldn't, because it wouldn't hold Maxwell's equations invariant, and it wouldn't give an accurate description of things moving at close to but less than lightspeed.

[quantum_wave]

No it couldn't, because it wouldn't hold Maxwell's equations invariant, and it wouldn't give an accurate description of things moving at close to but less than lightspeed.Good points.

[Arioch]

Arioch,

You fail to take into account the worldwide conspiracy of physicists who view Einstein as a god and who don't allow disproofs of relativity to be published. All crackpots amateur relativity disprovers are aware of the grand conspiracy. :)

That's one biggie of a conspiracy. How many people are we talking about here? Obviously every physicist in the world, plus the award committees, and we can't forget about every media outlet in the world...Holy mother of pearl, that's got to be hundreds of millions of people right there, and I'm pretty sure I'm missing some. How do they keep them all quiet?


That and the fact that a light source can travel a distance in the same time the light the source emitted travels. :shrug:

I'm not a physicist, I study ethology where things moving at or near light speed are irrelevant, this is not my area of expertise. However my criticisms still hold. If your mathematical models don't accurately describe the wealth of experimental results that confirm General Relativity then your mathematical models are flawed, plain and simple. In science, any science, experimental results are the final arbiter of a theory, end of story. I know that many mathematicians don't like this, but that's the way it is.

Besides, if you truly can prove this then submit your results to peer review. If it works then it will be recognized because scientists are always looking to prove one another wrong. Better yet, set up multiple experiments and obtain results which support your model and submit those, but don't expect to revolutionize physics on an internet forum.

[Motor Daddy]

Better yet, set up multiple experiments and obtain results which support your model and submit those, but don't expect to revolutionize physics on an internet forum.

I don't have the resources, nor do I have the network to do that, but that doesn't change reality because I can't prove it. The reality is, during a duration of time, light travels and the source can also travel. The reality is, a meter is defined by light travel time. Deal with it! I couldn't care less if science acknowledges those points or not. You can lead a horse to water...

[CptBork]

I don't have the resources, nor do I have the network to do that, but that doesn't change reality because I can't prove it. The reality is...

... Deal with it! I couldn't care less if science acknowledges those points or not. You can lead a horse to water...

The reality is no one will ever take you for a prophet when you're not even willing to put your own prophecies to the test.

[Arioch]

I don't have the resources, nor do I have the network to do that, but that doesn't change reality because I can't prove it. The reality is, during a duration of time, light travels and the source can also travel. The reality is, a meter is defined by light travel time. Deal with it! I couldn't care less if science acknowledges those points or not. You can lead a horse to water...

And I'm supposed to take the word of you, a person I know literally nothing about and who's spouting this stuff on an internet forum, over the experimental evidence which confirms Special and General Relativity....Riiiiight. So far all you've demonstrated so far is a stunning level of ignorance about how science works. You've said that mathematical models override experimental results when in reality the reverse is true. You've given us your mathematics, but so far they haven't been put to the test, until they are they're worth less than the bits used to store them.

Anyways, have you ever heard of the MacArthur Grant(the so called genius grant)? If you're truly as smart as you say you are then you should have no problem obtaining the grant money necessary to put your models to the test. And the best part for you is that because they don't accept applications for grants relying instead on anonymous nominations, you can ask one of your friends to nominate you. So instead of harping on about not having the resources you can take the easy(if you really are as smart as you say you are that is) steps necessary to get them and then earn your place in history as the very first person to rebut Special and General Relativity.

Of course, if you're just a crackpot who has no idea what you're talking about, as your reluctance to test your ideas indicates, then you'll just keep making excuse after excuse about how you're the victim of some giant conspiracy(for which no supporting evidence exists) and you're unable to prove that you're right but you'll demand that we believe you anyways. Can you see the problem here?

[OnlyMe]

@OnlyMe,

Now I realize that you did not understand my experiments.
Maybe my English is poor.
I try to explain the experiment with rangefinder.

A regular rangefinder that show 5 m from a target located to 5 m, on the land.
This is a waterproof rangefinder to use in wet conditions.
Now we put underwater the rangefinder and we hope it does not damage.
What do you think how much it will show the distance to the target that is 5 m distance to the rangefinder and it is also under water and?

Emil, my earlier post was perhaps a little more abrupt in the answer I gave than I would generally like.

Assuming, that the range finder is properly calibrated for the speed of light in any medium and the wavelength that it operates at is optimal for that medium the results should be the same no matter the medium.

If you use a range finder calibrated to function in air, in a vacuum without recalibrating for the difference in the measured speed of light in the two different conditions, the results would not agree. The same would apply in the case of an instrument calibrated for use in space, as in orbit, were it to be used in the atmosphere or in water without adjusting for the differing conditions and refractive indexes.

The accuracy here has less to do with the the light, than it does with properly calibrating for the conditions. Calibration in this case would involve how the results or two way travel time is interpreted. As long as it is calculated using the speed of light as measured for the involved medium the results should be the same. If no allowance for the changing conditions are made the results would be meaningless.

Sorry for the rather abrupt temper in my previous response.

[CptBork]

The accuracy here has less to do with the the light, than it does with properly calibrating for the conditions. Calibration in this case would involve how the results or two way travel time is interpreted. As long as it is calculated using the speed of light as measured for the involved medium the results should be the same. If no allowance for the changing conditions are made the results would be meaningless.

It would probably be even easier to do all the calibrations based on wavelength, since the frequency doesn't get altered by passage through a medium. Wavelength is far easier to determine in any case, it's been done for more than 200 years using equipment you could set up on a table top.

[Emil]

Sorry for the rather abrupt temper in my precious response.
Accepted.

Refractive indices for air 1.0003
Refractive indices for water 1.3330

Taking into account the different speeds for light in the air and in the water,
a laser rangefinder, calibrated for air, will show 6.663 m to a target that is at a distance of 5 meters under water.
Those who believe in SR, and they make a calculation, taking into account the length contraction, then let's do the experiment.
Let's see who is right.

[OnlyMe]

It would probably be even easier to do all the calibrations based on wavelength, since the frequency doesn't get altered by passage through a medium. Wavelength is far easier to determine in any case, it's been done for more than 200 years using equipment you could set up on a table top.

Good point!

[Motor Daddy]

...(snip) but you'll demand that we believe you anyways. Can you see the problem here?

I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. I actually feel sorry for you that you can't see the light (pun intended).

I understand what distance and time are, I'm sorry that you don't. I'm not concerned with getting rich or awards, I'm merely trying to teach you the proper concept of distance and time, as measured using light. If you don't believe me, fine. I won't lose any sleep over it. Like I said, I actually feel sorry for you.

[OnlyMe]

Accepted.

Refractive indices for air 1.0003
Refractive indices for water 1.3330

Taking into account the different speeds for light in the air and in the water,
a laser rangefinder, calibrated for air, will show 6.663 m to a target that is at a distance of 5 meters under water.
Those who believe in SR, and they make a calculation, taking into account the length contraction, then let's do the experiment.
Let's see who is right.

Emil, I would hope the confusion here really is a translation issue.

SR, or rather Einstein's 1905 paper, begins with the introduction of the speed of light in vacuum as a universal constant. There is nothing about the variations in the measured speed of light due to the refractive index of a transparent medium, that is in conflict with SR.

The range finder example you use is not in conflict with SR.

[Emil]

Emil, I would hope the confusion here really is a translation issue.

SR, or rather Einstein's 1905 paper, begins with the introduction of the speed of light in vacuum as a universal constant. There is nothing about the variations in the measured speed of light due to the refractive index of a transparent medium, that is in conflict with SR.

The range finder example you use is not in conflict with SR.

So there is no different lengths contraction for different speeds of a particle?

[AlexG]

Accepted.

Refractive indices for air 1.0003
Refractive indices for water 1.3330

Taking into account the different speeds for light in the air and in the water,
a laser rangefinder, calibrated for air, will show 6.663 m to a target that is at a distance of 5 meters under water.
Those who believe in SR, and they make a calculation, taking into account the length contraction, then let's do the experiment.
Let's see who is right.

I fail to see what length contraction has to do with this. For that matter, I can't see what SR has to do with this at all. You are using an instrument calibrated for one medium to measure distance (light speed) in another medium.

So what is your supposed point?

[AlexG]

Of course, if you're just a crackpot who has no idea what you're talking about, as your reluctance to test your ideas indicates, then you'll just keep making excuse after excuse about how you're the victim of some giant conspiracy(for which no supporting evidence exists) and you're unable to prove that you're right but you'll demand that we believe you anyways. Can you see the problem here?

You've hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head.

[AlexG]

So there is no different lengths contraction for different speeds of a particle?

There is no length contraction for light at all. Length contraction at relativistic speed only applies to particles or objects with mass.

[OnlyMe]

So there is no different lengths contraction for different speeds of a particle?

For a particle, with a rest mass, yes. Length contraction applies. Photons i.e. light has no rest mass. It is an electromagnetic energy packet, so to speak.

When an electron or a proton is accelerated to near light speeds, and note I said near not to the speed of light, theory projects and seems to be confirmed by experiment, that their particles become flattened like pancakes, so to speak. But both of these have a rest mass, where a photon does not.

The only thing even close to length contraction that could involve a photon is the curvature or expansion of space itself. Even then it is the shape of space that is dynamically stretched or compressed so to speak and the photon itself just moves through it. That is a whole different subject and lies in the details of GR rather than SR. (I know this last is a crude example/explanation, but I am almost at a loss to come up with a clear and simple example.)

[Emil]

For a particle, with a rest mass, yes. Length contraction applies. Photons i.e. light has no rest mass. It is an electromagnetic energy packet, so to speak.

When an electron or a proton is accelerated to near light speeds, and note I said near not to the speed of light, theory projects and seems to be confirmed by experiment, that their particles become flattened like pancakes, so to speak. But both of these have a rest mass, where a photon does not.

The only thing even close to length contraction that could involve a photon is the curvature or expansion of space itself. Even then it is the shape of space that is dynamically stretched or compressed so to speak and the photon itself just moves through it. That is a whole different subject and lies in the details of GR rather than SR. (I know this last is a crude example/explanation, but I am almost at a loss to come up with a clear and simple example.)
You say many "inaccurate" things but not worth pointed out.
Not only in this post but also in other posts.
Discussing these is "inaccuracies" would be off topic.

The muons have rest mass?

[AlexG]

The muons have rest mass?

The rest mass of a muon is 200 times that of an electron, about 10 times less than a proton.

It's a simple thing to look up.

[OnlyMe]

You say many "inaccurate" things but not worth pointed out.
Not only in this post but also in other posts.
Discussing these is "inaccuracies" would be off topic.

The muons have rest mass?

Emil, taking into consideration that my post came with a disclaimer that the macroscopic analogies I offered were crude examples, I would appreciate knowing what you see as inaccurate. I am not beyond making inaccurate statements and analogies. If you really believe them to be off topic, let me know by message on my profile page.

[Emil]

Emil, taking into consideration that my post came with a disclaimer that the macroscopic analogies I offered were crude examples, I would appreciate knowing what you see as inaccurate. I am not beyond making inaccurate statements and analogies. If you really believe them to be off topic, let me know by message on my profile page.

The model for absorption and re-emission is a quantum model attempting to explain refractive indexes.., .
I disagree


Radio frequencies penetrate water more efficiently than does light and provides the effective range in water to actually map the ocean floor, beyond the depth that light penetrates.
I disagree


For our purposes, length contraction can only be applied to moving objects, not light itself or distances.
I disagree


Length contraction does not apply to distances or photons, it applies only to material objects and even then is only measurable if the object is moving a significant fraction of the speed of light.

I disagree

For a particle, with a rest mass, yes. Length contraction applies. Photons i.e. light has no rest mass.
Also applies if it has effective mass.

But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".

[OnlyMe]

I disagree

I disagree


Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Radio frequencies penetrate water more efficiently than does light and provides the effective range in water to actually map the ocean floor, beyond the depth that light penetrates.

I disagree
In this you are probably correct, depending on the wavelength. It has been a while since that post but I probably should have said sound waves, as in sonar.


I disagree

Also applies if it has effective mass.

But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".

As to the rest, I guess you are entitled to your own opinion.

As to the absorption/reemission model it was introduced as a link to a video explaining the process as, an explanation of refraction.

Most of the rest has been covered repeatedly in these and other forums.

[Read-Only]

But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".

and therein lies your entire problem with this subject: You don't want to consider what science has actually proven to be correct, but rather only what YOU "think."

That's very, very sad because it demonstrates the height of both your arrogance AND blind ignorance.

[Emil]

and therein lies your entire problem with this subject: You don't want to consider what science has actually proven to be correct, but rather only what YOU "think."

That's very, very sad because it demonstrates the height of both your arrogance AND blind ignorance.
It is a clear example of your "inaccuracies", making it impossible a discussion between us.
I said clearly:


But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".
If you want a discussion on one of these topics, you only have to open a new thread.
But you prefer a hysterical response.

[OnlyMe]

If you want a discussion on one of these topics, you only have to open a new thread.

Emil, the thread.., the title of this thread defines the conversation as involving Special Relativity. It is in a pseudoscience sub folder but that in and of itself should not preclude the interjection of "science" into the discussion.

Given this as context, discussing SR is consistent with the current thread. It even allows a bit more latitude in ideas than might be acceptable in a thread more directly associated with contemporary scientific consensus.

I don't believe that there is anything, any issue we (including you) have raised, that would not be an acceptable point of discussion for this thread.

We do not have to agree with one another to discuss any subject. In truth, the best discussions, on almost any subject, most often involve differing points of view.

I do not know how to responde to your last reply to me since there was little substance to the reply. Just stating you do not agree, essentially ends discussion. I do not dispute the fact that we seem to disagree on many fundamental points. I do disagree in the implied position, that the points raised are not appropriate for this thread.

[origin]

“ Originally Posted by OnlyMe
For our purposes, length contraction can only be applied to moving objects, not light itself or distances. ”
Originally Posted by Emil
I disagree
Is there a reason you disagree with this. What evidence or data is your disagreement based on, or is this just your opinion?



“ Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Length contraction does not apply to distances or photons, it applies only to material objects and even then is only measurable if the object is moving a significant fraction of the speed of light. ”
Originally Posted by Emil
I disagree
Is there a reason you disagree with this. What evidence or data is your disagreement based on, or is this just your opinion?



“ Originally Posted by OnlyMe
For a particle, with a rest mass, yes. Length contraction applies. Photons i.e. light has no rest mass. ”
Originally Posted by Emil
Also applies if it has effective mass.
What evidence or data is this based on, or is this just your opinion?


Originally Posted by Emil
But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".
Really? Isn't that kind of the point of the forum, to discuss competing ideas??:shrug:

[AlexG]

I've posted all that before. Emil doesn't really pay any attention, except to say 'I disagree'.

[OnlyMe]

I've posted all that before. Emil doesn't really pay any attention, except to say 'I disagree'.

I can't judge anyone on this kind of interaction. I can easily remember times when I was so certain that what "I knew" was right, that any contradicting idea or information, was felt almost as an attack on me personally. We define ourselves to some extent in this way. It happens even to the best of those we call experts, in their field.

I try today to test my own ideas on an almost daily basis, just because over the years I have learned just how far-off the mark much of what I had believed and been taught was, when viewed retrospectively.

A real life example for you. When I was younger I purchased 1000 shares of Apple between $5 and $8 a share. I decided it was time to sell when Apple hit $72. That turns out to have been a wrong assumption. Though I can't really complain. I did have to pay taxes on a profit.

[Read-Only]

I can't judge anyone on this kind of interaction. I can easily remember times when I was so certain that what "I knew" was right, that any contradicting idea or information, was felt almost as an attack on me personally. We define ourselves to some extent in this way. It happens even to the best of those we call experts, in their field.

I try today to test my own ideas on an almost daily basis, just because over the years I have learned just how far-off the mark much of what I had believed and been taught was, when viewed retrospectively.

A real life example for you. When I was younger I purchased 1000 shares of Apple between $5 and $8 a share. I decided it was time to sell when Apple hit $72. That turns out to have been a wrong assumption. Though I can't really complain. I did have to pay taxes on a profit.

OnlyMe, I think this is worth consideration: In a broad sense, there's nothing inherently wrong with being wrong. We've all been wrong about things at points in our lives - and will continue to be wrong about other things now and then.

However, there IS something VERY wrong with continuing to hold on to an erroneous concept when presented with a ton of facts that clearly prove a idea we have is false. To behave in that fashion is the hallmark of an idiot.

The world is crammed full of idiots of varying degrees. From people who believe the Earth is flat to those who will not accept that humanity has actually set foot on the Moon. But they will forever remain simple idiots because they refuse to accept the truth in the evidence presented to them.

Such is the case with Emil. Despite thousands of experiments that have shown the validity of SR, he will never accept it because it goes against what he believes. He is SO ego-centric that his mind can never admit his belief is false. Not only is he trying to swim upstream against the current, he's forced (by his stupid ego) to try to swim up a waterfall.

There's only one way to deal with such an individual (one who refuses to learn), and that's to totally ignore them.

[OnlyMe]

There's only one way to deal with such an individual (one who refuses to learn), and that's to totally ignore them.

That is always an option.

I don't know anything about, really one who posts here, sufficiently to judge them so harshly. There are often language barriers and even barriers involving education, culture and social conditions. Abscent sufficient information to make an educated and informed judgement, I choose not to jump to what for me would amount to a judgement based on ignorance.

There are a great many reasons why anyone may be or become entrenched in a believe system. I cannot know the circumstances anyone other than myself, faces. Even some of those we might consider "scientists" wear their own special pair of rose colored glasses. I am certain that I do, even while I attempt to see another's perspective.

I just choose not to judge, when I can.

[origin]

OnlyMe, I think this is worth consideration: In a broad sense, there's nothing inherently wrong with being wrong. We've all been wrong about things at points in our lives - and will continue to be wrong about other things now and then.

However, there IS something VERY wrong with continuing to hold on to an erroneous concept when presented with a ton of facts that clearly prove a idea we have is false. To behave in that fashion is the hallmark of an idiot.

Amen to that!

[Read-Only]

That is always an option.

I don't know anything about, really one who posts here, sufficiently to judge them so harshly. There are often language barriers and even barriers involving education, culture and social conditions. Abscent sufficient information to make an educated and informed judgement, I choose not to jump to what for me would amount to a judgement based on ignorance.

There are a great many reasons why anyone may be or become entrenched in a believe system. I cannot know the circumstances anyone other than myself, faces. Even some of those we might consider "scientists" wear their own special pair of rose colored glasses. I am certain that I do, even while I attempt to see another's perspective.

I just choose not to judge, when I can.

Your approach in giving them the benefit of the doubt is admirable. I do that as well. However, once they have proven that they are refusing to learn, despite all the evidence against their belief, it's time that we don't allow our "open minds" become "holes in our heads." ;)

Face it - it's totally impossible to teach someone who absolutely refuses to learn. Much, much better to spend your time and efforts on others and let that idiot just die on the vine. When THAT is their attitude, then WE become the dumb ones if we keep trying!

[origin]

I don't know anything about, really one who posts here, sufficiently to judge them so harshly.

Emil is a good one to understand the frustration involved. Emil has shown he has no idea what length contraction is but he does know that whatever it is it cannot exist.:shrug:

[Emil]

Such is the case with Emil. Despite thousands of experiments that have shown the validity of SR, he will never accept it because it goes against what he believes. He is SO ego-centric that his mind can never admit his belief is false. Not only is he trying to swim upstream against the current, he's forced (by his stupid ego) to try to swim up a waterfall.

LOL...your logic is amusing.
"If you disagree with the theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) of specia relativity then you're ego-centric."
LOL...good logics.. ...LOL

Read-Only, you live in a dream.
Please present an evidence, simple and without any additions (if you know what an evidence).

[AlexG]

LOL...your logic is amusing.
"If you disagree with the theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) of specia relativity then you're ego-centric."
LOL...good logics.. ...LOL

Read-Only, you live in a dream.
Please present an evidence, simple and without any additions (if you know what an evidence).

This post is totally empty of content. Might as well be white space.

[OnlyMe]

So there is no different lengths contraction for different speeds of a particle?


I disagree

I disagree

I disagree

I disagree

Also applies if it has effective mass.

But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".


LOL...your logic is amusing.
"If you disagree with the theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) of specia relativity then you're ego-centric."
LOL...good logics.. ...LOL

Read-Only, you live in a dream.
Please present an evidence, simple and without any additions (if you know what an evidence).

Emil, several of us, "other posters", have attempted to present the case for length contraction. We do not all agree on all aspects, but I believe there is some general consensus that length contraction is an integral component of special relativity.

As noted from a series of your above quoted posts, I see no where, since your question, "So there is no different lengths contraction for different speeds of a particle?”, where you have presented any opposing argument aside from, "I don't agree.".

It is completely within your prerogative to disagree. However, if that disagreement ends with a statement that you disagree, it leaves little in the way of discussion on the table.