The diagram was originally meant to represent a traditional light clock with the axis of the clock aligned parallel to the direction of motion. I suppose that you could consider the left-hand side of the clock to be both and emitter and a receiver since the light signal has to be both emitted and detected in order for the clock to tick. You could probably also consider the right hand side to be an emitter. It is a mirror but sometimes it makes sense to consider a mirror to be an emitter. -Dale
That is true, but does not mean there is resistance to reproducible evidence that Relativity theory is wrong. Quite the contrary, if any such were produced, the first to do so would surely get the Noble prize almost immediately. That is what distinguishes science from art. Scientists, especially us old guys, may be slow to accept the new evidence (I still like my "relativistic mass" as I find it more useful than mass as the GR warp of space, etc., which I do not understand, as I can not do the GR math.) but eventually what is demonstrable an improvement on the older view will become the standard view. (Some wag once noted that physics advances with each death of an old physicist.) Just as a very recent illustration of how very well established theory is over turned by new REPRODUCIBLE evidence, in my local newspaper about a week ago was report that some genetic information is carried in the RNA, not the DNA or "genes" of it. Some experiments with mice that had genetic defect of white tails, but he reporter did not really understand so I do not. (Even in crosses without the "white tail gene," the white tail appeared if RNA from white tailed mouse was injected into embryo.) I think the original paper appeared in Nature, if memory serves. (Having your paper in Nature or Science is sort of a mild form of a "Noble prize," but instead of getting money - you, or more likely your institution, pays the "page charges.")
The irony in this statement is that it shows you are the one who is completely and totally out of touch with the scientific mainstream (not to mention the basic conduct of science). You must not read the same journals I read because in those journals well respected scientists are constantly talking about possible Lorentz violations. You must have also not read about the many beautiful and ever more elaborate experiments that continue to push the boundaries of Lorentz invariance. It's also clear you don't attend a lot of scientific colloquia because tests of relativity are a hot topic these days. In fact, I just attended a colloquium last week that described the state of the art in tests of General Relativity. Anybody finding such a violation would be on a fast track for a Nobel prize. To think otherwise is to be unbelievably naive.
Hello all I have an idea to measure absolute velocity using "aberration of light". Pros and cons are welcome. As a primer (if you need) here are some sites: http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/aberration.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Aberration/Aberration.html There are two ways to measure “aberration of light”. The first involves knowing the exact position of two objects/stars in space, A and B, and from the vector BA measure the angle that a telescope on B must be inclined to view A. The second involves changing the velocity of B and measuring the change in the inclination angle needed to view A. However the second method will only measure the “aberration of light” due to the change in B’s velocity. Aberration of light is based on the fact that a photon travels in a straight line in space-time (space-time may be curved but the photon doesn't notice). The velocity of the emitter does not matter to the photon’s direction of travel (the photon does not travel sideways). The telescope is designed to magnify/collect photons that travel parallel to the optic axis of the telescope. The velocity of the telescope with respect to the photon is all that matters. Absolute aberration of light can only be determined by the first method or if we had a way to measure the instantaneous change in aberration angle. Since light/photons travel in straight lines and is/are independent of the source then I will propose a method for discussion to measure absolute aberration of light via instantaneous change (or close to it) of the angle of aberration. Take a long rotating cylinder with a laser at one end and a CCD photo detector at the other end. As the cylinder rotates the path of the laser on the CCD will change and will form a circle for the output of the CCD. The orientation of the rotating axis is then changed and the diameter of the output recorded. When the circle is at a maximum diameter then the axis of rotation is at right angle to the absolute linear velocity (Vc) of the cylinder through space. When the circle is at minimum diameter then the axis of rotation is parallel to Vc. The difference between the maximum/minimum diameters, the length of the cylinder, and the speed of light can be used to determine Vc. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If this were true then all diagrams explaining time dilation are false. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Photons absolutely positively do not travel straight ahead at c while also traveling sideways at any velocity over zero. Any disagreeing party may feel free to display all evidence they have. Time dilation may be an endangered species.
Suppose you have a clock and you hold it a foot away from your face and synchronize it with your favorite Rolex wristwatch. Then you order your assistant Rela to slowly and gently and patiently walk away with it to a distance of one light hour away and set it down. Then you look at it through your Walmart telescope and are surprised to notice that it is showing time one hour earlier than your Rolex and you don't understand. Your best friend Tivity explains to you that light takes an hour to come from the clock to your observation so therefore, accordian to Relativity, the clock has time traveled. Accordian to Relativity, the travel of light from an object to your observation provides you with the best and only knowledge you can have about what is real. Suppose you have another clock which is one of those trick jobs with a glass back in addition to the normal glass front. When you are on either side of the clock you can see the hands. Again, you instruct Rela to carry something, but this time the clock is left with you. Rela carries a mirror one light hour away and sets it down. You look at the mirror through the telescope and see the reflection of the clock (which is actually still one foot away from you). Now you are in a quandry. You see the image of the clock, showing 2 oclock, but a clever check of the clock one foot away from you shows 4 oclock. Again, your best friend Tivity explains that accordian to Relativy, the light reaching your observation from an observed object is the basis of reality, so it is reality. Albert said so. So, accordian to Relativy, the clock is REALLY showing 4 oclock the same time time that you, in your halucinatory condition, also think you see it REALLY showing 2 oclock.
Perhaps he didn't qualify it but a point would be what one sees is perception and not physical reality of the clock. Seeing it as it read two hours ago doesn't make it read that time. Its time goes unaltered by remote or moving observers perceptions.
I think CAN GAS was making a joke. No one thinks that seeing something a light hour away shows what it is like right now.
Careful CANGAS, you are making one of the mistakes that, until now, has been largely reserved for MacM. Specifically, you are misquoting SR and saying that it predicts something that it simply does not. This makes your opposition to SR seem like blind unreasoning bias and prejudice, which I hope is not the case. -Dale
That much was obvious. But usually jokes have a punch line, and there didn't seem to be a such in his post... Not since we discovered that the speed of light is finite, no. But I seemed like CANGAS wanted to make a point about relativity, and there wasn't anything in there about that (other than the confusion DaleSpam pointed out - but I'll not attribute that to neither malice nor ignorance, but simply assume that CANGAS thought it funny.)
In Einstein's own words, and in a multitude too vast to count, of Relativity's teachers' words, it is pointed out to us that our perception of reality is based upon, and LIMITED TO , the flight of light from the percieved object to our eye. The derivation of gamma is based upon this dogma. The utilization of Lorentz transformations is blatantly and plainly stated to be based upon the principle that we can only aprehend the world by the light that reaches our eyes coming from the observed object. The functionality of Minkowski 4 space is totally rooted in the concept that light provides the communication that every particle of matter uses to properly act in unison with every other particle. Now we say, "Well, yes, but, if it becomes a little difficult to explain away a contradiction, we have to say, "surely you must be joking, Mr CANGAS.""
Suppose CANGAS has a ghetto blaster pumping out his favorite music and he holds it a foot away from his face and synchronizes it with a portable player. Then he orders his assistant MacMania to slowly and gently and patiently walk away with it to a distance of 344 metres away and set it down. Then he listens to it and is surprised to notice that it is playing music 1 second earlier than your portable player and he doesn't understand. His best friend explains to him that sound takes 1 second to come from the ghetto blaster to his observation so therefore, accordian to good ole Newtonian mechanics, the ghetto blaster has time traveled. Accordian to CANGAS, the travel of sound from an object to his observation provides him with the best and only knowledge he can have about what is real. Suppose again, he instructs MacMania to carry a portable brick wall, but this time the ghetto blaster is left with CANGAS. MacMania carries the wall 344 metres away and sets it down. CANGAS listens to the wall through his favorite ear trumpet and hears the echo of the ghetto blaster (which is actually still right next to him). Now he is in a quandry. He hears the echo, with the music 2 seconds behind the music coming out next to him. Again, his best friend explains that accordian to the CANGAS theory, the sound reaching his observation from an observed object is the basis of reality, so it is reality. So, accordian to CANGASity, the ghetto blaster is REALLY pumping out music at two different points - one 2 seconds behind the other.
The important difference here is that Relativity blatantly and plainly states that the travel time of light is the divinely defining factor about what any observer must depend upon for seeing reality. According to Relativity, "what you see it what you get.". Does JamesR agree or disagree regarding this Relativity dogma? Does JamesR actually know what Relativity teaches regarding the role of light as the crucial information carrier in perception of reality?
This does not imply "what I see now is happening now". It implies "what I see now happened in the past". I'm beginning to suspect that CANGAS is a sock puppet for MacM.
Pete: You can quickly and simply prove your case that Relativity has nothing to do with light as an information agent. Quote for us passages from any six peer reviewed Relativity books that clearly explain to us that your off beat view is correct: that Relativity is not at all dependent upon light as the crucial information agent in the observer's analysis of reality. I have read too many Relativity texts too count which clearly and blatantly state that the perception of light from a subject is the relativistic basis for defining the reality of that subject. For anyone to imply that Relativity as it is currently taught, or as it it has been explained by Einstein himself, is independent of light borne information is either the result of your having gross ignorance of the matter, or your wanton willingness to lie to try to win a discussion.
You mis-state my case, CANGAS. I don't deny your premise, that (according to Relativity) "our perception of reality is based upon, and LIMITED TO , the flight of light from the percieved object to our eye." I do deny your conclusion, that (according to Relativity) "what I see now is happening now". I suggest that the correct conclusion is that (according to Relativity) "what I see now happened in the past". Please feel free to quote for us passages from any six peer reviewed Relativity books that clearly explain to us that your off beat view is correct: that Relativity suggests that what is perceived at time X happened at time X.
Pete has mis stated his case and is now trying to spin it to his benefit. It will not be the last time.
CANGAS has lost the ability to read, and is now trying to divert attention. It won't be the last time. Once more: If "our perception of reality is based upon, and LIMITED TO , the flight of light from the percieved object to our eye", then how does that imply that what is perceived at time X happened at time X?
