Challenging a concrete MacM claim about str.

It seems a previous post of mine fell out during the last crash, so I've taken it out of the thread it originated in, and given it it's own thread instead, as that was more appropriate.

Anyway, MacM has (finally) come with a concrete claim, which should be easy for him to demonstrate:

I'd really like to see a proof of this, because the last time I did the calculations of time dilation for a light clock parallel to the direction of motion (e.g. here), with length contraction, the correct time dilation popped out. That is, I contest your claim.

Please show me the math giving a consistent gamma for a light clock perpendicular and parallel to the direction of motion, without using length contraction.

The math shouldn't be hard to do, in fact, it's only elementary algebra, but I'd like to see it from your hand.

[EDIT:] This thread is about the math of str. MacM has made a very specific claim about a specific piece of str math. I believe he is wrong but will give him the chance to defend himself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On the contrary, I know of no experiment that proves length contraction actually exists. It is just assumed to exist since special relativity requires it. Thus any time dilation experiment explained by special relativity assumes length contraction inheriently. I do not think the challenge you have put forth for MacM can be proven by MacM or disproven by you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree only in this respect. It is easy to demonstrate mathematically that spatial length contraction only exists when you exclude the time dilation also known to exist in the moving clock you claim travels less distance.

You simply cannot disregard, not just a claim of time dilation, but the fact that IT has been physically demonstrated.

It physically exists and cannot be disregarded. If you retain that physical fact then spatial length contraction vanishes.

That to me is suffcient proof of the failure of Special Relativity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You cannot prove something with your silly statements and your own self-only-intuitive brand of physics!

 

I hope you understand this statement says nothing and it is what is silly. You have just said mathematics do not count unless you accdept and use SR mathematics. Sorry but you fall way short on this one.

If you claim I am wrong it is your burden to show where I am wrong. Please show me a case of spatial contraction where time dilation of the moving clock claimed to travel less distance, is retained. Go ahead, we all await your posting this simple proof I am wrong.

 

Oh I did? I did not ever even think that, how could I have possibly have said that? I guess I need to keep close watch on my mouth... er, hands.

Well... here we go again.

As I've said before:
I've never said your interpretation is right or wrong. You seem to equate me telling you that your intepretation cannot be proven as claiming it is wrong.

 

Funkstar,

Can you please demonstrate that the photons moving orthogonal to the motion of a frame and reflecting from mirrors move in a zig-zag pattern? Is this directly related to any postulate of SRT? Is it just convenient to use the light zig zagging as you have indicagted?

I can understand if the mirrors are not oriented with their vector describing their plane aligned with the trajectory of the light that is reflecting between the mirrors and that the slight tilt could account for the zig- and the zag.

However, from the posutlates of light that assure us that the light speed is independent of the source of the light, seems to be violated [as was the same error made in the Michelson-Morley Experiments].

1.Is an impulse of momentum applied to the light in the direction of the motion of the frame? If so why does not your analysis not concern itself with this physical event?

2. Does the contracted mirror along the direction of motion get deformed into little planes on the surface that are tilted in the direction of motion of the frame?

3. I have seen in a number papers the terms similar to, "the light gets carried along by the frame". Can you explain this?

4. Can you give some SRT rationale for the reason the light moves as you describe?

Geistkiesel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

If d = (t * v)/k where k is the time dilation factor due to motion of the clock making the trip. Just where is the proof missing.? I stated if you retain the physically known to exist time dilation due to motion of the clock that the distance cannot change.

Now I have written a formula that encompasses that statement. Please use it and post samples that my statment is not proven.

 

By this example, we could equally prove special relativity - this tells me nothing.

 

No, you can prove that Special Relativity tells you a bunch of hocum.

 

Beautiful.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

..................

 

I don't care about experiments, I want to see the math. MacM claims that length contraction only pops out by ignoring time dilation in str. I contest that claim.

 

As I said: Prove it.

Show me the math.

 

Geist, all of your objections can be solved if you think about the fact that you can see yourself in the mirror on a moving train.

This is, of course, wrong. In fact, the invariance of light speed is exactly how time dilation pops out. So the length of light's velocity vector is frame invariant. A vector also has a direction, however, and that is frame dependent (because you change coordinates going from frame to frame).

Moving on:

There's no momemtum imparted to the light simply by observing it from a moving frame, and no such momemtum is assumed.

No. The mirrors are perfectly flat.

I won't, because I didn't write that. However, I can see what they mean, and it is explained below.

Yes. We're simply observing the path of the light. Since both observers agree that the light does in fact bounce back and forth between the mirrors (otherwise the theory would be non-sensical), the path of the light comes out as the zig-zag pattern to the embankment observer. It's just a coordinate change.

Think about the part in blue if you don't get it.

 

You should - experiments are all that matter in this case.

Ignoring time dilation in str? You must be kidding... or have a misunderstanding. MacM says you can ignore length contraction in str and interpret time dilation differently. Unforntunately, MacM doesn't understand the implications of this - most notably the reject of the postulates of special relativity as being correct or complete.

 

This is a theoretical thread about a thought experiment. Of course, you're absolutely right that experiments have the final word about a theory's validity as a model of the real world, but this has nothing to do with that. MacM claims that length contraction can be claimed in str only because time dilation is ignored, and I challenge him to produce the maths to prove it.

It's right up there in the OP.

 

Exactly, MacM never claims to ignore time dilation - just the opposite.

 

I don't think you understand. MacM states that in str length contraction can only be claimed if one ignores time dilation. It is this claim I challenge.

I don't care about his reinterpretation of time dilation.

 

Well then he would be wrong - can you provide evidence of him saying this multiple times? Or was there just one instance which surely you'd have to forgive if he retracts.

Edit: Again, I do not read the quote you provided in the opening post as agreeing with your interpretation as you just stated.