Silly Einstein

[Aardwolf]

1.Is the shape of the propagation something other than a sphere? Any observer; moving or not, cannot see the sphere since only a ray from the source is available to any single observer.

The shape is a sphere as measured from the original location of the emitter, not as measured from its subsequent movement through space. Until you accept this you cannot resolve the problem that all observers in the universe should observe two adjacent flashes at the same time from any observation point in the universe . . .

If you look back through the thread,“The shape is a sphere as measured from the original location of the emitter [when the particular wave sphere was emitted], not as measured from its [the source's] subsequent movement through space” has been my premises from the very start of this thread! I am pleased that you agree with me on this.

Then please explain why A does not see the flash from X and the flash form B at exactly the same time (within a few nanoseconds)? Both emitters were at the same original location when the flashes occured and the distance from those emission locations to A is the same.

[Goldminer]

1.Is the shape of the propagation something other than a sphere? Any observer; moving or not, cannot see the sphere since only a ray from the source is available to any single observer.

The shape is a sphere as measured from the original location of the emitter, not as measured from its subsequent movement through space. Until you accept this you cannot resolve the problem that all observers in the universe should observe two adjacent flashes at the same time from any observation point in the universe . . .

If you look back through the thread,“The shape is a sphere as measured from the original location of the emitter [when the particular wave sphere was emitted], not as measured from its [the source's] subsequent movement through space” has been my premises from the very start of this thread! I am pleased that you agree with me on this.

Then please explain why A does not see the flash from X and the flash form B at exactly the same time (within a few nanoseconds)? Both emitters were at the same original location when the flashes occurred and the distance from those emission locations to A is the same.

If we use the initial point of the flashes as origins for the observer frames, then we can refer to these origins as we discuss further. From either X's or B's point of view, one frame's source is "at rest with its observers" and the other frame has observers in un-accelerated (inertial) motion ); at rest with the moving frame's origin but relatively in motion with the "at rest frame." At any given time after the initial flash, the expanding sphere caused by the flash will be a certain diameter.

(I am examining only one of the flashes, since everything about this flash applies to the other flash too, only the players are reversed.)

Do you think the expanding sphere from one source, centered upon where the source was when the flash was emitted; splits in two and now there are two expanding spheres from this source, one in the source frame and one in the moving frame?

If you do, then you must provide an infinite number of spheres split from this source, since there can be an infinite number of moving observer frames observing this one expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the flash was emitted.

At any given time after the initial flash, the expanding sphere caused by the flash will be a certain diameter. Do you think it is possible for a set of observers in the source frame to observe this sphere at a given time from emission, by being present on the surface of the sphere at this time and place in space?

Do you think it is possible that a group of observers in the moving frame can observe this same sphere at the same time and place in space?

Do you see that during the time the sphere expanded to this size, the whole moving frame including the origin has separated from the source origin in the source frame?

This will make the coordinates of these observers as related to the moving frame origin very different from the coordinates in the source frame, relative to the source origin. These results are contrary to the Voigt, or Galilean "transform," the later being a genuine example of a "cock up."

I realize that this short discussion does not answer your justified inquiry. I am just trying to understand your reasoning as well as explain mine. More to come if you are interested. (I appreciate being shown folly in my reasoning, by the way.)

Incidentally, I sense that I am being grouped with the consensus relativists. If that be the case then I am offended. On second thought; just annoyed.

.

[Aardwolf]

I realize that this short discussion does not answer your justified inquiry.

Then obviously there is something fundamentally wrong with the theory you subscribe to. The fact remains that if 2 flashes occur at virtually the same point in space then those flashes should be observed as virtually simultaneous from any observation point in the universe (once the light has reached them). The light from each flash must be propagating through the space at the same velocity and there's no mechanical reason not to. The fact that one of the sources was moving at the time is entirely irrelevant.

Newton was right in this respect. Space must be absolute (which Einstein eventually agreed with although he was ignored when he did). Special Relativity is about observational phenomena only. The Michelson–Morley exeriment is flawed as it could not measure what is was designed to measure. It cant be done except in absolute vacuum. Consider what would happen if it was done in water or glass. Would you be able to detect a flow of aether when the light is already slowed in all directions? Same problem in air (and in laboratory "vacuums"). In addition I suspect that higher gravitational fields may have a similar effect on the propagation of light, in the same way as its effect on atomic clocks. This would certainly explain the Pioneer anomaly.

[Goldminer]

OK, Aardwolf, I now have your theory of how things work expressed several times now. I can hold your theory and what I see concurrently without having a fit.

Can you please humor me and answer the questions I posed in the above post? (I am not trying to trap you, but where there are contradictions, they should be ironed out, don't you think?)

[Aardwolf]

OK, Aardwolf, I now have your theory of how things work expressed several times now. I can hold your theory and what I see concurrently without having a fit.

Can you please humor me and answer the questions I posed in the above post? (I am not trying to trap you, but where there are contradictions, they should be ironed out, don't you think?)

I dont see the point in going forward if we can't agree that 2 adjacent flashes of light, travelleing through exactly the same medium, will not reach any given destination at exactly the same time. Further discussion will just be the result of your insistance that this doesn't happen. Been here too many times before and this is the crux of it, and its something you can't mechanically resolve even if you are conceptually happy with it. Of course you need to be conceptually happy with it otherwise your entire theory dissolves. In the real world, you know they reach the destination at the same time.

What if instead of 2 seperate flashes from X & B there was a single flash caused by an electric arc between X & B? Now you would have me believe that A & C see the arc at the same time after 5 years, and X & Y see the arc at the same time after 5 years. But Y is 4.5ly past C when the flash reaches it; that's some weirdly twisted sphere.

[Aardwolf]

Do you think the expanding sphere from one source, centered upon where the source was when the flash was emitted; splits in two and now there are two expanding spheres from this source, one in the source frame and one in the moving frame?

If you do, then you must provide an infinite number of spheres split from this source, since there can be an infinite number of moving observer frames observing this one expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the flash was emitted.

No. Only one sphere.

At any given time after the initial flash, the expanding sphere caused by the flash will be a certain diameter. Do you think it is possible for a set of observers in the source frame to observe this sphere at a given time from emission, by being present on the surface of the sphere at this time and place in space?

You cant observe the sphere.

Do you think it is possible that a group of observers in the moving frame can observe this same sphere at the same time and place in space?

You cant observe the sphere.

Do you see that during the time the sphere expanded to this size, the whole moving frame including the origin has separated from the source origin in the source frame?

No. I agree the observers in the moving frame have separated from the source origin and source frame, but they have also separated from the moving origin. It's an origin (hence its name) and it has a fixed point in absolute space right next to the source origin (and in my arc example how could they be separated?).

[Goldminer]

You are driving in a car at a constant speed.

On your left side is a valley and on your right side is a fire engine traveling at the same speed as you.

In front of you is a galloping pig which is the same size as your car and you cannot overtake it.

Behind you is a helicopter flying at ground level.

Both the giant pig and the helicopter are also traveling at the same speed as you.

What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?

[Aardwolf]

You are driving in a car at a constant speed.

On your left side is a valley and on your right side is a fire engine traveling at the same speed as you.

In front of you is a galloping pig which is the same size as your car and you cannot overtake it.

Behind you is a helicopter flying at ground level.

Both the giant pig and the helicopter are also traveling at the same speed as you.

What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?

Wake up?

[Goldminer]

That, or jump off the merry-go-round at the amusement park. The point being that the car and the other items on the merry-go-round are all in one frame of reference. The dirt on the ground and the ticket booth are in another frame of reference. Yes, an origin of a coordinate system can be placed at the pivot of the merry-go-round and another at the center of the ticket booth. In this special instance, the objects in the merry-go-round move with respect to the ticket booth frame while the origins of both do not change distance over time. Nevertheless, the objects within each frame do not change distance with each other within either frame.

If the distance changes between an object "in" a reference frame, and the rest of the objects in that frame, it is a member of a different reference frame, and not a member of that frame.

You are welcome to make up your own rules, but as you say, we will have not much to agree upon after that.

Here is a link at General Science Journal Forum to a thread that I started there under the pseudonym of Sherlock referencing Don Scott's article "Perceiving Einstein."

The thread contains many different viewpoints which you might find interesting. (My understanding of this subject has changed since I posted to that thread.)



.

[klypp]

The point being that the car and the other items on the merry-go-round are all in one frame of reference. The dirt on the ground and the ticket booth are in another frame of reference. .

and

If the distance changes between an object "in" a reference frame, and the rest of the objects in that frame, it is a member of a different reference frame, and not a member of that frame.

As much as I hate it, I now have to annoy you, Goldminer.

This is nothing but the kind of nonsense Einsteinian relativists cook up in order to defend their absurdities. I don't want to put you in the same box as them, but please, don't go too far into this "reference frame" jungle. Relativists use it to bewilder, and in most cases you do well without it.

If you use the ground as reference in your merry-go-around example, it's easy to see what's going on. That's all there is to it. We choose a reference that makes it easy for us to describe the actual scenario.
If you insist of having one "reference frame " where the merry-go-around is, and another "reference frame" where the ticket booth is, what have you achieved?
Nothing! Now you´ll have to describe the relative motion between these "reference frames" instead of describing the relative motion directly between the merry-go-around and the ticket booth. You have simply made it more complicated for yourself.
Or, in your language where objects are "in" a reference frame, you now have to describe the motion of one reference frame "in" the other reference frame.

A merry-go-around rotates. That is all I need to say. Everyone can understand this. Why?
Because this rotation will be observed as an rotation by any observer anywhere in the universe, including the galopping pig. Any reference will do, whether it is a point, a frame or whatever. So why dream up a lot of "reference frames" ?
Just keep it simple!

Hope I didn't annoy you too much.

[Goldminer]

The point being that the car and the other items on the merry-go-round are all in one frame of reference. The dirt on the ground and the ticket booth are in another frame of reference. .

and

If the distance changes between an object "in" a reference frame, and the rest of the objects in that frame, it is a member of a different reference frame, and not a member of that frame.

As much as I hate it, I now have to annoy you, Goldminer.

This is nothing but the kind of nonsense Einsteinian relativists cook up in order to defend their absurdities. I don't want to put you in the same box as them, but please, don't go too far into this "reference frame" jungle. Relativists use it to bewilder, and in most cases you do well without it.

If you use the ground as reference in your merry-go-around example, it's easy to see what's going on. That's all there is to it. We choose a reference that makes it easy for us to describe the actual scenario.
If you insist of having one "reference frame " where the merry-go-around is, and another "reference frame" where the ticket booth is, what have you achieved?
Nothing! Now you´ll have to describe the relative motion between these "reference frames" instead of describing the relative motion directly between the merry-go-around and the ticket booth. You have simply made it more complicated for yourself.
Or, in your language where objects are "in" a reference frame, you now have to describe the motion of one reference frame "in" the other reference frame.

A merry-go-around rotates. That is all I need to say. Everyone can understand this. Why?
Because this rotation will be observed as an rotation by any observer anywhere in the universe, including the galloping pig. Any reference will do, whether it is a point, a frame or whatever. So why dream up a lot of "reference frames" ?
Just keep it simple!

Hope I didn't annoy you too much.

No annoyance at all. If anyone gets annoyed from other's posts, outside of ad homenim type detraction (a sign that the poster has no argument) they just need to toughen up! Yes, relativists are infamous for playing loose with the strict logic required when dealing with frames of reference, coordinate systems, and logic. In fact, the insight that I am trying to reveal to those reading this thread deals with this very problem. The Voigt transform, also known as the "Galilean Transform," is a half baked scheme. The entire Einstein "Special Theory of Relativity" subtends from that diagram. That and the famous "zigzag path" of a supposed "photon" which actually only travels directly back and forth between two mirrors, as you say. How many mirrors are shown in the animations in the earlier posts? Many more than two. Isn't that a clue that someone is taking liberty with reality? (The pig and consorts see the entire universe spinning while they remain in fixed proximity; the Universe see them doing the spinning, no?)

The frames and coordinate systems are not part of physical reality. Yet Relativists try to imply that they affect time and space. I am trying to show how clueless such ideas actually are. I am not trying to belittle Ardwolf's response, but he hasn't noticed that he is using the "speed of light" without specifying to which source the light belongs. The expanding sphere of light from a given source doesn't disconnect from that source and just start expanding in a sphere relative to some other source! If it does, please explain the physics of that! His Idea that a coordinate system origin referenced to a given frame of reference doesn't remain fixed to that frame of reference is illogical. That is an idea that I have seen so many "relativists" commit, I am tempted to believe that it belongs to their religion. The merry-go-round theme is the only one of which I can think, that allows the two origins to remain fixed to each other, and still allow the two systems to move relative each other.

.

[klypp]

Thanks for your answer, Goldminer! Most of it was clarifying and reassuring. I couldn't agree more!

But sometimes I have problems following you. As when you say:

I am not trying to belittle Ardwolf's response, but he hasn't noticed that he is using the "speed of light" without specifying to which source the light belongs. The expanding sphere of light from a given source doesn't disconnect from that source and just start expanding in a sphere relative to some other source! If it does, please explain the physics of that!

I am sure you agree that the speed of light results from the interaction of light with the medium it travels through. Thus the expanding sphere is not centered on where the emitter is at any given time. It is centered on where the emitter was (in this medium) when the sphere first came into existence. If the emitter moves relative to this medium, it is no longer at the center of the expanding sphere.

So the expanding sphere of light has actually disconnected from its source (the emitter). And it does expand relative to another "source" (the medium).

Or?
What am I missing?

[Goldminer]

Thanks for your answer, Goldminer! Most of it was clarifying and reassuring. I couldn't agree more!

But sometimes I have problems following you. As when you say:

I am not trying to belittle Ardwolf's response, but he hasn't noticed that he is using the "speed of light" without specifying to which source the light belongs. The expanding sphere of light from a given source doesn't disconnect from that source and just start expanding in a sphere relative to some other source! If it does, please explain the physics of that!

I am sure you agree that the speed of light results from the interaction of light with the medium it travels through. Thus the expanding sphere is not centered on where the emitter is at any given time. It is centered on where the emitter was (in this medium) when the sphere first came into existence. If the emitter moves relative to this medium, it is no longer at the center of the expanding sphere.

So the expanding sphere of light has actually disconnected from its source (the emitter). And it does expand relative to another "source" (the medium).

Or?
What am I missing?

Rethink the MM experiment. It did not reveal that the speed of the expanding sphere from one source is received by observers moving relative to that source at the same said speed. It did not. What it revealed is that the speed of the medium is not detectable!

The light source was right on the interferometer, along with the observing screen. Check it out! Thus no change in distance between source and observer. Incidentally, inclining the interferometer to the vertical plane and rotating it reveals that there is no interference caused by gravity, either! Kind of messes with the General theory, No?

Ardwolf is right that a single observer cannot see the expanding sphere, I pointed the same thing out in earlier posts, myself. This is the reason I am specifying a "fleet of observers" in each frame to do the job. If one studies up on antenna research, one will find that the same, or similar principles are used in determining the radiation pattern of various antenna designs.

.

[klypp]

Rethink the MM experiment. It did not reveal that the speed of the expanding sphere from one source is received by observers moving relative to that source at the same said speed. It did not. What it revealed is that the speed of the medium is not detectable!

MM was nowhere near testing whether the speed of light depended on the medium or not. What they tried to detect was the aether. If it existed, the speed of light should not be the same in all directions because of the earths motion through this aether.
They actually did get a result, but MM accepted that this result was within reasonable error margins and therefore accepted they had not been able to prove the existence of the aether.
But they didn't disprove it either! And a lot of later experiments seems to indicate an aether. My view on this is that it is a bit like searching for dark matter. There is a lot of things that will affect the medium light travels through. Let's find out what these things are, rather than declare the aether to be found every time.

Radar systems, modern communication, GPS, etc. all works because the speed of waves depends on the medium they travel through. These last years we've been able to slow light down to a practically standstill in laboratories. We are also able to accelerate light to speeds above the famous "lightspeed", c.
It is all done by manipulating the medium. You will have a hard time arguing that light takes it speed from elsewhere.

Ardwolf is right that a single observer cannot see the expanding sphere, I pointed the same thing out in earlier posts, myself. This is the reason I am specifying a "fleet of observers" in each frame to do the job. If one studies up on antenna research, one will find that the same, or similar principles are used in determining the radiation pattern of various antenna designs.

There doesn't need to be an expanding sphere. A laser is a good example of that.
But two lasers at X and B in Aardwolf's example will still be seen at the same time at C!

[Aardwolf]

That, or jump off the merry-go-round at the amusement park. The point being that the car and the other items on the merry-go-round are all in one frame of reference. The dirt on the ground and the ticket booth are in another frame of reference. Yes, an origin of a coordinate system can be placed at the pivot of the merry-go-round and another at the center of the ticket booth. In this special instance, the objects in the merry-go-round move with respect to the ticket booth frame while the origins of both do not change distance over time. Nevertheless, the objects within each frame do not change distance with each other within either frame.

If the distance changes between an object "in" a reference frame, and the rest of the objects in that frame, it is a member of a different reference frame, and not a member of that frame.

You are welcome to make up your own rules, but as you say, we will have not much to agree upon after that.

Here is a link at General Science Journal Forum to a thread that I started there under the pseudonym of Sherlock referencing Don Scott's article "Perceiving Einstein."

The thread contains many different viewpoints which you might find interesting. (My understanding of this subject has changed since I posted to that thread.)



.

But still no explanation why the flash of light from two adjacent emitters travels across the same medium at different speeds.