Relativity Linear Thread

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Thanks for your responses so far, although I am still not entirely satisfied.
(Note: I've adjusted the diagrams slightly, so please don't refer to the older ones.)

Hopefully, we all pretty much agree that a projectile will behave as shown. It points perpendicular from the train, but travels diagonally along the line BY.

moving train 3.jpg

No, we do not agree. The projectile and the collimated beam both travel transverse to the train. Their path over the ground describes a diagonal. At no time do they "move diagonally." The projectile can be seen moving transversely from either frame, the burst of light cannot.

Why can't the burst be seen, Goldminer? Because, Micheal V, it has to be detected to be seen.

This diagram represents the Goldminer view of light's directional propagation (I hope, do correct me if I am mistaken). It is very similar to the projectile, except that light can only travel at c

moving train 2.jpg

No, it does not. The burst travels from B to X, which as I stated, moves with B. The burst travels from B to X at the speed of light. The path that the burst supposedly makes across the ground has to exceed the speed of light in order to reach Y when the actual burst reaches X.

Now then, this is where it gets interesting. What if we place a light bulb right next to the laser and "fire" them at the same time. Won't the light from the light-bulb travel away in all directions?. If so, I am having a hard time reconciling the spherical/circular propagation from the light-bulb with the inertial directionality of the laser light. Can you explain you point of view please.

moving train 4.jpg

I would be happy to explain: The burst only travels perpendicularly to the train. The omnidirectional light source has a spherically expanding wave front. This wave front expands at the speed of light. A ray of light is a portion of the expanding sphere that is absorbed by a given detector. (By the way, your idea of excluding detectors and observers is absurd.)

There is a ray from the omnidirectional light source burst that accompanies the transverse laser pulse to X, which is in the train frame. They will both be detected at the same time in both frames when the pulses travel the distance from B to X (at the speed of light in the train frame), provided detectors happen to be at X in the train frame, and at Y in the track frame. The Y detector has to be placed specially in the track frame so that X happens to be there at Y exactly when the two pulses arrive. ( Actually the Y detector needs to be a series of detectors aligned along the tracks, and angled at the aberration angle in order to detect the pulses, since X and the arrival of the pulses will be moving by at your specified speed of 1/3 the speed of light.)

There is another ray of light from the omnidirectional light source burst that does travel at the angle you show for the ground path of the transverse traveling bursts. This wavefront ray does travel at the speed of light along that angle in the train frame. (If another collimated laser beam were to be fired simultaneously with the other bursts, at this angle, it would coincide with this ray.) You can use vector addition to find the effective speed of light for this ray in the ground frame. This pulse would be detected further down the tracks (from where X,Y, and the bursts coincide), in the direction of the train's motion, at a later time. This pulse would have both some Doppler shift and some aberration as seen from the tracks.

I am not seeking argument, just seeking facts/opinions. Also, I am not really interested in the experience of observers relative to each other, I am seeking to understand the behavior and experience of the photons.

Michael

IMHO, "photons" are an artifact. At any rate "photons" or the "wavefront ray" cannot be seen or detected until they travel the distance to the detector. Neither "experience" anything as they are not sentient. All they can do is interact with matter. That means that they must be detected. Please apply some logic while you seek.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

(Just to clarify some of the experimental details: the laser has an "aperture" of 10-18m and a pulse duration that produces a "beam" of 10-18m. So the laser light "blip" is a cylinder of length and diameter 10-18metres. There is only one single pulse timed to fire when the laser on the train reaches the point B along the track. The omni-directional emitter also produces the most fleeting of pulses in the 10-18seconds, or shorter, duration range. The track is mounted on a system of rods in a position in deep intergalactic space. There are no outside influences of any sort. The entire experiment zone is laid out with a system of rods to ensure that all distances are fully and unequivocally agreed upon.)

The projectile and the collimated beam both travel transverse to the train. Their path over the ground describes a diagonal. At no time do they "move diagonally." The projectile can be seen moving transversely from either frame, the burst of light cannot.

Why can't the burst be seen, Goldminer? Because, Micheal V, it has to be detected to be seen.

Yes, yes, bleeding obvious, but since you state it explicitly, I am in agreement.

IMHO, "photons" are an artifact. At any rate "photons" or the "wavefront ray" cannot be seen or detected until they travel the distance to the detector. Neither "experience" anything as they are not sentient. All they can do is interact with matter. That means that they must be detected. Please apply some logic while you seek.

If I hold a brick above the Earth it will "experience" a fall due to gravity and a collision with the ground. The brick's sentience or lack of is irrelevant. What is relevant is our understanding of the process. Strictly speaking "Light" as we perceive it is our interpretation of a phenomena due to the operation of electrons. The electrons emit "something" that we have evolved to use as a spatial navigation system. As such the photons (whether real or wave artifact) are a real physical object and not an illusion owned by observers. Between emission and detection/reception/interception/termination something that is real and physical exists and travels across and through "space". Mr Einstein does not appear to have considered this quite obvious fact. You may choose to describe it as a "wavefront" and I have correctly determined that it is a collection of particles, although this point is unimportant for relativistic purposes. What is important is that the "light object" is a real physical object. Referring to relative motion between objects whilst at the same time denying the light itself the status of "object" is to entirely miscomprehend the issue. Light is not a "law of physics", it is a physical object.

We can debate the precise nature of the "light" at some later date, the question on the table is "how does it move relative to the emitting source?"

You can use vector addition to find the effective speed of light for this ray in the ground frame.

Err, well no you can't. "Why can't the burst be seen, Goldminer? Because, Micheal V, it has to be detected to be seen." The only way to detect the light is to intercept it, since no scattering occurs in this experiment. Once the light leaves the train, the train will have no further contact or detection of it. The light always travels at c, the distances are immutable and fixed by a systems of rods. If light is always emitted at c, then vector addition must always result in an actual c, with no possibility of length contraction and time dilation, because light is a physical object.

The problem remains, which you have either not understood or avoided is, how does the pulse from the laser behave in the way that you have described and simultaneously the light from the omni-directional source not follow the example set by the laser light.

Either the laser light, having departed the train, travels from B to X, or it inertially acquires an additional velocity and/or directional component and it travels from B to Y.

In the B to X scenario, the omni-directional source will transmit a circle/sphere of light described by the arc AA.
In the B to Y scenario, the omni-directional source will transmit a circle/sphere of light described by the arc CC.

The arc AA defines light as non-inertial and travels at constant c relative to the emitter.

The arc CC defines light as inertial, with a velocity of c-v or c+v relative to the emitter.

I confess that I am unsure as to the correct answer. So, in your considered opinion, which is it?

Michael V

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

(Just to clarify some of the experimental details: the laser has an "aperture" of 10-18m and a pulse duration that produces a "beam" of 10-18m. So the laser light "blip" is a cylinder of length and diameter 10-18metres. There is only one single pulse timed to fire when the laser on the train reaches the point B along the track. The omni-directional emitter also produces the most fleeting of pulses in the 10-18seconds, or shorter, duration range. The track is mounted on a system of rods in a position in deep intergalactic space. There are no outside influences of any sort. The entire experiment zone is laid out with a system of rods to ensure that all distances are fully and unequivocally agreed upon.)

The projectile and the collimated beam both travel transverse to the train. Their path over the ground describes a diagonal. At no time do they "move diagonally." The projectile can be seen moving transversely from either frame, the burst of light cannot.

Why can't the burst be seen, Goldminer? Because, Micheal V, it has to be detected to be seen.

Yes, yes, bleeding obvious, but since you state it explicitly, I am in agreement.

IMHO, "photons" are an artifact. At any rate "photons" or the "wavefront ray" cannot be seen or detected until they travel the distance to the detector. Neither "experience" anything as they are not sentient. All they can do is interact with matter. That means that they must be detected. Please apply some logic while you seek.

If I hold a brick above the Earth it will "experience" a fall due to gravity and a collision with the ground. The brick's sentience or lack of is irrelevant. What is relevant is our understanding of the process. Strictly speaking "Light" as we perceive it is our interpretation of a phenomena due to the operation of electrons. The electrons emit "something" that we have evolved to use as a spatial navigation system. As such the photons (whether real or wave artifact) are a real physical object and not an illusion owned by observers. Between emission and detection/reception/interception/termination something that is real and physical exists and travels across and through "space". Mr Einstein does not appear to have considered this quite obvious fact. You may choose to describe it as a "wavefront" and I have correctly determined that it is a collection of particles, although this point is unimportant for relativistic purposes. What is important is that the "light object" is a real physical object. Referring to relative motion between objects whilst at the same time denying the light itself the status of "object" is to entirely miscomprehend the issue. Light is not a "law of physics", it is a physical object.

We can debate the precise nature of the "light" at some later date, the question on the table is "how does it move relative to the emitting source?"

Since you already know everything and yet mis-comprehend the issue, I doubt that I can enlighten you.

You can use vector addition to find the effective speed of light for this ray in the ground frame.

Err, well no you can't.

You can't because you are using Einstein's logic.

"Why can't the burst be seen, Goldminer? Because, Micheal V, it has to be detected to be seen." The only way to detect the light is to intercept it, since no scattering occurs in this experiment. Once the light leaves the train, the train will have no further contact or detection of it. The light always travels at c, the distances are immutable and fixed by a systems of rods. If light is always emitted at c, then vector addition must always result in an actual c, with no possibility of length contraction and time dilation, because light is a physical object.

The one-way speed of light detected from a relativistically moving source has never been unambiguously determined. Recent experiments indicate that it is c + or - v.

The problem remains, which you have either not understood or avoided is, how does the pulse from the laser behave in the way that you have described and simultaneously the light from the omni-directional source not follow the example set by the laser light?

The problem remains, which you have either not understood or avoided is; you refuse to follow my logic, and keep inserting your own obstinate opinion of what I said.

moving train 5.jpg

Either the laser light, having departed the train, travels from B to X, or it inertially acquires an additional velocity and/or directional component and it travels from B to Y.

In the B to X scenario, the omni-directional source will transmit a circle/sphere of light described by the arc AA.
In the B to Y scenario, the omni-directional source will transmit a circle/sphere of light described by the arc CC.

The arc AA defines light as non-inertial and travels at constant c relative to the emitter.

The arc CC defines light as inertial, with a velocity of c-v or c+v relative to the emitter.

I confess that I am unsure as to the correct answer. So, in your considered opinion, which is it?

Michael V

The laser beam only travels perpendicularly from the laser. When the burst is detected, the laser is located directly across from Y. In your scenario, for some reason the laser stops moving when it fires. The line B-Y is merely the path the burst takes in the track frame. It is longer than the perpendicular distance from B to X. The burst travels B-X' in the train frame. If the train was 3000 meters wide, X' would be a target on the opposite wall. If the train is moving to the right, the ground frame (the tracks) moves to the left.

Your arcs representing the expanded light sphere misrepresent what you claim. The sphere is detected at X' in the train frame. The B-X' distance is the radius of the sphere, and it is centered on the light source. When the sphere is detected at Y,(when X' is also at Y) the angled ray has the same radius as the perpendicular ray. Thus it has to keep going for a longer time and distance (undergo additional expansion) to intersect the tracks. The angled ray takes longer to intersect the tracks than the perpendicular ray. (The angled ray will hit the wall of the wide rail car to the right of X'. Name this spot Y'. Y' will always be ahead of X' in ether frame.)

Assume that there is a laser 3000 meters from X which is just beyond the tracks. This laser is perpendicular to the tracks and aimed at X. There is a train moving to the right at 1/3 c, with a detector facing the laser. At the time the laser burst is fired, the detector is to the left of X. The detector arrives at X exactly when the burst from the laser arrives at X, and detects the burst. How far to the left of X was the detector when the laser burst was fired?

Assume that there is another laser located to the left of the laser specified in the above paragraph, (along the line parallel to the tracks, aimed to the right; at the angle you specify as the diagonal path drawn in your diagrams, such that it is also aimed at X.) Does this distance between lasers work out to be the same distance as the detector's distance from X when the above laser was fired?

Both lasers are fired simultaneously by a pulse of light emitted from a point halfway between them. Obviously the perpendicular pulse will beat this pulse to X in the track frame (The track frame is also the frame with the lasers in this scenario.) This pulse will be detected in the train frame behind the perpendicular pulse.

The angled laser beam is the same as the ray from the omniscient emitting source, without all the ambiguities.

[webolife]

You think I am observing an alternate universe, but I challenge you to prove that the signals fired from your new "diagonal" laser and the perpendicular one will not be detected at the same instant by X. Assuming that the detector has a curved surface that is perpendicular to both signals, and is able to instantaneously record two signals at once, unlike for example a phororeceptor cell in our retina.

[Goldminer]

You think I am observing an alternate universe, but I challenge you to prove that the signals fired from your new "diagonal" laser and the perpendicular one will not be detected at the same instant by X. Assuming that the detector has a curved surface that is perpendicular to both signals, and is able to instantaneously record two signals at once, unlike for example a phororeceptor cell in our retina.

I'm not sure what a "phororeceptor cell in our retina" is or does. My posts are based upon what I understand about physics and logic. As far as proving anything, I challenge you to prove your contention that your ideas allow the two signal to arrive simultaneously. I suppose that if one wants to believe in the instantaneous appearance of light pulses across any distance, your contention is valid. I just don't buy it.

The availability of coherent, collimated laser light, attosecond pulses of said light and the ability to detect the same provide the components to actually perform such experiments. I, however, am not in the position to conduct them.

I have discussed this very same setup (The direct aiming of a beam along the purported path of the transverse pulse in the moving detector frame vs. the arrival of the transverse pulse in the moving detector frame) in the "Silly Einstein thread" previously. It is not a new idea.

While coordinate systems and frames of reference are superfluous to your train of thought, understanding them is necessary to see where Einstein et al have gone astray, using available evidence and conventional logic. My disagreement with Michael V, IMHO, is that he is trying to apply what I propose using his shortsighted version of reality. I can't mix my understanding with your tightly held presumptions, neither can I use his diagrams to explain his folly (IMHO) to him. For anyone interested a heated debate of said coordinate systems and frames of reference is available here.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

In your scenario, for some reason the laser stops moving when it fires.

Well yes, because it's a diagram, not a video. Also, the subsequent motion, or not, of the train is irrelevant, once the light is emitted, the train and emitters can have no further part to play or any further affect upon the emitted photons.

My disagreement with Michael V, IMHO, is that he is trying to apply what I propose using his shortsighted version of reality.

Perhaps then you might stop referring to the irrelevant experience of observers and detectors and instead focus on the physics of light propagation. Einstein's error was to place human observers at the centre of the universe. Rather than obsessing about the experience of observers and their inability to overcome the practical obstacles of relative motion, it might be better to concentrate thought on the analysis of motion.


Special Relativity rests on a few badly analysed premises:
1) There is no test of motion without photonic reference to other atomic structures.
2) The mathematical equations of 19th Century physics, in particular those of Maxwell, must be constant regardless of velocity.
3) The velocity of travel of photonic signals are tied to observers and must always appear constant to all observers.

Goldminer, you are the consummate relativist, but your strict adherence to the above list has blinded you to the actual basic errors of relativity. Perhaps that is why you refuse to answer the simplest of questions.

The only question is, how do the real physical objects that are the omni-directional light pulse and the laser light pulse, travel away from the position B.

If the train/light-emitters were at rest, relative to the track, at position B, then presumably the laser pulse would travel from B to X and that the omni-directional pulse would expand as described by arc AA.

You have then suggested that if the train/light-emitters were in motion when it reaches B, then the laser pulse would instead travel from B to Y due to the motion of the emitter relative to the track.

Are you also suggesting that the omni-directional pulse will then still expand to AA?

If so, why is the laser pulse affected by the motion of the emitter and the omni-directional pulse is not?

If the laser pulse and the omni-directional pulse follow the same rules, then by your suggestion, if the laser pulse travels from B to Y, then the omni-directional pulse must be more like arc CC, but perhaps more oval than circular. How do you explain this apparent incongruity?

(I was originally inclined to suggest that the light would travel from B to X and to AA regardless of the motion of the emitter, but I am not fixed to this idea.)

Michael V

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

In your scenario, for some reason the laser stops moving when it fires.

Well yes, because it's a diagram, not a video. Also, the subsequent motion, or not, of the train is irrelevant, once the light is emitted, the train and emitters can have no further part to play or any further affect upon the emitted photons.

My disagreement with Michael V, IMHO, is that he is trying to apply what I propose using his shortsighted version of reality.

Perhaps then you might stop referring to the irrelevant experience of observers and detectors and instead focus on the physics of light propagation. Einstein's error was to place human observers at the centre of the universe. Rather than obsessing about the experience of observers and their inability to overcome the practical obstacles of relative motion, it might be better to concentrate thought on the analysis of motion.


Special Relativity rests on a few badly analysed premises:
1) There is no test of motion without photonic reference to other atomic structures.
2) The mathematical equations of 19th Century physics, in particular those of Maxwell, must be constant regardless of velocity.
3) The velocity of travel of photonic signals are tied to observers and must always appear constant to all observers.

Goldminer, you are the consummate relativist, but your strict adherence to the above list has blinded you to the actual basic errors of relativity. Perhaps that is why you refuse to answer the simplest of questions.

The only question is, how do the real physical objects that are the omni-directional light pulse and the laser light pulse, travel away from the position B.

moving train 6.jpg

If the train/light-emitters were at rest, relative to the track, at position B, then presumably the laser pulse would travel from B to X and that the omni-directional pulse would expand as described by arc AA.

You have then suggested that if the train/light-emitters were in motion when it reaches B, then the laser pulse would instead travel from B to Y due to the motion of the emitter relative to the track.

Are you also suggesting that the omni-directional pulse will then still expand to AA?

If so, why is the laser pulse affected by the motion of the emitter and the omni-directional pulse is not?

If the laser pulse and the omni-directional pulse follow the same rules, then by your suggestion, if the laser pulse travels from B to Y, then the omni-directional pulse must be more like arc CC, but perhaps more oval than circular. How do you explain this apparent incongruity?

(I was originally inclined to suggest that the light would travel from B to X and to AA regardless of the motion of the emitter, but I am not fixed to this idea.)

Michael V

There is only one expanding wavefront. There is only one coherent collimated laser beam. The wave front is centered upon the source. The beam proceeds directly out of the lens of the laser. It does not veer at your angle. The detectors can be at rest with the source or moving in relation to the source. Any chosen point on the wavefront or along the beam; either, or, both "at rest"/"moving" detectors will/can detect the said portion of wavefront/beam at the same place and time. If the detector moves past the wave front, or the wavefront moves past the detector, nothing will be detected.

All your musings about what "photons do" are useless, because everything we know about light, we know because it was detected.

You diagrams suffer from the very same problems you accuse me of doing.

Did you ever receive my diagrams?

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

In your scenario, for some reason the laser stops moving when it fires.

Well yes, because it's a diagram, not a video. Also, the subsequent motion, or not, of the train is irrelevant, once the light is emitted, the train and emitters can have no further part to play or any further affect upon the emitted photons.

I see that we can't let you play alone. Have to start over at square one every time!

For the laser to stop moving, however irrelevant you think it is, it must undergo acceleration. We are contemplating an inertial frame of reference. Therefore the laser keeps moving. Newtons laws, remember? It helps to see what is happening with your precious "photons."

In my last scenario , above, I set the laser on the ground, and put the detectors in the train. I was hoping against hope that you would see how the laser beam would hit the target on the other side of the tracks. As long as the laser remains where it was when the beam was emitted, it will be at the center of the expanding sphere. It is at inertial rest. Being at inertial rest does not preclude another laser, also free from acceleration, from being in motion relative with said laser.

You might ask what would happen if the laser were pivoted at the center and rotated. I would expect (if one could see the expanding series of pulses) they would appear as a spiral, centered upon the laser. Now, if the laser were in inertial motion, I would expect the spiral to remain centered upon the laser.

How is this deduced? Being at rest with source is the only situation where the spectrum of the radiation of the expanding sphere surrounding the source is not Doppler shifted.

All of Albert's Clocks, squishy time and space, are moot when one realizes that the at rest with the source detector and the moving detector can be at the same time and place in space and detect the same portion of the expanding sphere at the same time, (even if only for the tiniest instant.) (This does away with the lack of simultaneity that Albert made famous.)

You seem to want the "moving frame of reference" to be something more than a reference. It is not. It just helps keep all the moving detectors organized in the scene we are discussing. (All the detectors in the moving frame are fixed and immovable with each other.) The moving detectors end up being spaced out differently in their own frame vs. how the at rest with the source detectors are space out in the at rest with the source frame.

In the case of the laser beam pulse, the at rest with the source detectors end up being in a line along the beam. The moving detectors (one for each at rest detector) end up being lined up along a diagonal, because they are moving, (as a group,in formation so to speak) each successive detector moves into place to detect the pulse as the pulse moves away from the laser. This is what forms the diagonal that you insist magically diverts the beam from extending straight out from the laser. I have an explanation for the diagonal, you don't. Love that salt in the wound!

I am analyzing what happens to the wavefronts and beams. They have to be detected to know where they are. So stop with the complaints about them. You are the one on a tangent, speculating what happens without knowing where anything is located.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Whilst I digest you recent posts, would please, as concisely and accurately as possible, describe what you mean by "inertial motion" and "inertial frame of reference".

Oh, and by the way, I am inclined to suspect that the laser pulse would travel from B to X completely and utterly regardless of the perpendicular motion of the train mounted emitter. I thought it was you that was suggesting that the direction of the laser pulse was affected by the motion of the emitter, so the diagonal is your theoretical creation.

Michael V

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Yes, I have received your charts, thank you kindly. However, I am at a loss to interpret them.

As usual, we seem to have descended into argument rather than discussion. In an attempt to refresh the discussion I've done some new, simpler diagrams.

In Scenario 1, the two emitters are travelling along the line of the track at 0.5c relative to the track. When they reach the position indicated by B, they emit an "instantaneous" pulse of light, and continue to travel in the same manner. Some time later they reach the position along the track indicated by C. At that same simultaneous time, the laser pulse photons emitted from point B reach position X and the omni-directional light pulse photons reach a spherical/circular distance from point B, described by the circle AA.

In Scenario 2, the two emitters are travelling along the line of the track at 0.5c relative to the track. When they reach the position indicated by B, they emit an "instantaneous" pulse of light, and continue to travel in the same manner. Some time later they reach the position along the track indicated by C. At that same simultaneous time, the laser pulse photons emitted from point B reach position X and the omni-directional light pulse photons reach a elliptical distance from point B, described by the ellipse AA. In this scenario, the motion of the photons includes a velocity component received due to the motion of the emitter.

With no wish to sway you opinion with any earlier comments, I am interested in which scenario best represents your opinion and why?. If one of the diagrams in closest to your opinion, but not in precise agreement, how should it be amended? What is the logical reasoning behind your opinion?

Also have you been able to organise your thoughts sufficiently to answer my query regarding "inertial" motion and "inertial" reference frame.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

With no wish to sway you opinion with any earlier comments, I am interested in which scenario best represents your opinion and why?. If one of the diagrams in closest to your opinion, but not in precise agreement, how should it be amended? What is the logical reasoning behind your opinion?

Sorry, your diagrams are beyond comment from me. You have mangled the principles so terribly, I am not going to take the time to straights you out. Don't worry about swaying my opinion. When I apply the principles of colligation to our comments, reality stands out automatically, and it is on my side of the explanations we have proposed.

Also have you been able to organize your thoughts sufficiently to answer my query regarding "inertial" motion and "inertial" reference frame.
Michael

Congratulation on admitting that you don't understand something! That is a hard thing to accomplish for someone with the haughty and puerile attitude you brandish on this forum.

My thoughts are quite organized in reference to the topics at hand.

I'll let you in on a secret I use, so as to not appear ignorant: There is this invention know as the internet. I use it to research things which I may not understand. I use it all the time! Try it with your need to understand "inertial" motion and "inertial" reference frame.

If you do as I suggest, and study the threads "Silly Einstein" and "apples and apples" you may find the answers you seek, but don't trust me, compare my ideas on "inertial" motion and the "inertial reference frame," with all the authorities.

My diagrams use a simple convention of my own invention. All three axes are denominated in lightnanoseconds. I fail to understand why this is such a stumbling block. This simple construct allows for time, distance and velocity to be diagrammed by selecting various coordinate points in the coordinate system. The speed of light is the primary velocity. All other velocities are a ratio to the speed of light. For example: 1/3c, 1/4c, 1/2c. These sub velocities are used primarily in showing how, where and when a group of moving observers/detectors intercept the expanding wavefront or beam from a given source. Any distance specified by sets of coordinates is also a duration of time in nanoseconds. No need for a fourth axis for time!

Attempting to show the source sphere's expansion history and the various groups of observers/detectors all on one chart becomes impossible to interpret; therefore the need for several charts. The fact that observers move in relation to the source's sphere, as the sphere expands; the observer charts can be moved over the source's history of expansion.

A pulse of light travels about a foot per nanosecond. If you insist upon using meters in your diagrams, a factor of about 3 must be added to all distances compared to time in nanoseconds, as diagrammed. If you really want to follow my interpretation, drop the crap with the meters in your diagrams. I don't need the extra exercise in arithmetic.

Yes, I am implying that an object at rest will remain at rest, and all light emitted from said source at rest will emanate at c. "At rest" means "unaccelerated." If you were in a laboratory "in motion" but "unaccelerated" compared to this object, you would still find the speed of light from a source at rest with you to be c. This is Einstein's first postulate. Few physicists disagree with this understanding.

This means to me that light does have "at rest inertia" just as the source itself has inertia. After diagramming out the at rest observers when they are coinciding with the moving observers, I see how silly all Einstein's machinations and his second postulate really are.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Sorry, your diagrams are beyond comment from me. You have mangled the principles so terribly, I am not going to take the time to straights you out. Don't worry about swaying my opinion. When I apply the principles of colligation to our comments, reality stands out automatically, and it is on my side of the explanations we have proposed.

Fair enough, you are perfectly entitled to restrict the mode of your discussion to your own terms.

With regards to the concepts named "inertial motion" and "inertial frame of reference", I was seeking you specific interpretation. I am quite Google-aware.

Yes, I am implying that an object at rest will remain at rest, and all light emitted from said source at rest will emanate at c. "At rest" means "unaccelerated." If you were in a laboratory "in motion" but "unaccelerated" compared to this object, you would still find the speed of light from a source at rest with you to be c. This is Einstein's first postulate. Few physicists disagree with this understanding.

Instead, I will content myself with this as an answer.

So, your opinion is that light itself is inertial. I presume that you might envisage a wavefront emanating omnidirectionally from an electron and as such the the expanding wavefront would inherit the electrons motion in addition to the c velocity derived directly from the act of emission. Again, fair enough, and that does make some sense.

Personally, I am bothered by the apparent lack of scientific effort to experimentally establish a one-way speed of light. I am not convinced by the supposed difficulties of clock synchronisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
However, there is evidence that strongly suggests that the speed on light is constant regardless of the motion of the emitter. It is this that sways me to accept that light travels at an absolutely constant speed, not Einstein's observer-centric relativistic nonsense. Do have a theoretical explanation for this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_ ... experiment

Michael

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

following a proof-reading review, I re-present the last part of my previous post:


However, there is evidence that strongly suggests that the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of the emitter. It is this that sways me to accept that light travels at an absolutely constant speed, not Einstein's observer-centric relativistic nonsense.

Do you have a theoretical explanation for this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_ ... experiment

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

following a proof-reading review, I re-present the last part of my previous post:


However, there is evidence that strongly suggests that the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of the emitter. It is this that sways me to accept that light travels at an absolutely constant speed, not Einstein's observer-centric relativistic nonsense.

If the light speed were absolute, but isotropic, (I don't know how that would work) there will be problems with the speed of light in all other frames.

Do you have a theoretical explanation for this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_ ... experiment

Michael

I don't know about a "theoretical" explanation. I think I have a logical idea. In most binary systems, the stars orbit their barycenter. If they are about the same mass, each will take turns, one will be receding while the opposite approaches, as seen by the astronomer. Twice during the cycle, one of the stars will block view of the other, only one will be seen. (as viewed side on, as de Sitter claims.) If the receding part of one cycle gets viewed along with the approaching part of another cycle, who can tell? I haven't been able to locate the actual pictures he collected.

Another point I see, (I have never seen this discussed anywhere): The latency of the light changes with the distance. In recession, the emitted light takes successively longer to reach the astronomer as the distance increases. If the light were emitted in pulses, the pulses will be closer together, even though the light is redshifted. In approach, the emitted light takes successively less time to reach the astronomer as the distance decreases. If the light were emitted in pulses, the pulses will be farther apart, even though the light is blueshifted. This is contrary to initial thinking; however, when drawn out as in my charts, it is obvious.

I believe the above is the real reason for this:

When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, “Classical Theory” predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1+v/c and 1-v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to Classical Theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced.
|.....|.....|

But if the light is shifted by special relativity's predictions, the additional Lorentz offset means that the two outer marks will be offset in the same direction with respect to the central mark.
|....|......|

Ives and Stilwell found that there was a significant offset of the centre of gravity of the three marks, and therefore the Doppler relationship was not that of "Classical Theory".

My diagrams show that this is the "Classical Theory"

[Aardwolf]

If the light speed were absolute, but isotropic, (I don't know how that would work) there will be problems with the speed of light in all other frames.

Theoretically there may be problems but until a proper measurement is made in a high speed environment we have no real idea. Maybe if I had a ship that could travel to 0.5c, an experiment performed in a genuine vacuum may show that light does indeed travel forward at 0.5c and backward at 1.5c on said ship.