Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:46 am

Michael V wrote:Xantos,
I saw nothing in that linked video that suggested waves, so "clearly shows" is a decided odd claim. A trillion FPS is about 9 orders of magnitude slower than c and all the light signals reaching the camera come from the scene (i.e. stimulated emission). You can't look at light using light, in the same way that a passing spaceship can't see the light between the light clock mirrors.

I think you have not quite comprehended the basic process of vision. You cannot actually "see" objects, in that you are completely reliant on signals being sent to your eye. The scene image arrives at your retina upside down and your retina converts the signal to an electrical signal which is sent to your brain for processing and "viewing". When you move the laser pointer backwards and forwards fast enough it creates the visual effect of a line on the wall - this is similar in concept to a brand new invention called "moving pictures".. Turns out that movies are just a bit of a trick that utilises a limitation of human visual capture and processing.

By the way, all these light waves you've been seeing, by what fundamental method have you been detecting the light signal? By what method is light only and always detected?

Michael

Light travels about a foot per nanosecond. Clearly, MJV, you can't even do arithmetic. Did you read how the video came about?
MIT Media Lab's Camera Culture group wrote:Video of a fruit illuminated by a femtosecond laser pulse and captured at an effective trillion frames per second. Light moves less than 1 mm per frame.

We have built an imaging solution that allows us to visualize propagation of light at an effective rate of one trillion frames per second. Direct recording of light at such a frame rate with sufficient brightness is nearly impossible. We use an indirect 'stroboscopic' method that combines millions of repeated measurements by careful scanning in time and viewpoints.

The device has been developed by the MIT Media Lab's Camera Culture group in collaboration with Bawendi Lab in the Department of Chemistry at MIT. A laser pulse that lasts less than one trillionth of a second is used as a flash and the light returning from the scene is collected by a camera at a rate equivalent to roughly 1 trillion frames per second. However, due to very short exposure times (roughly one trillionth of a second) and a narrow field of view of the camera, the video is captured over several minutes by repeated and periodic sampling.

For more info visit

http://raskar.info/trillionfps
http://femtophoto.info
The effective film speed is about equal to the speed of light. But don't let that stop your silly comments!

Your opinion is that everything is particles.

My opinion is that everything is waves. I win by proclamation.

I am just being silly, and so are you . . . X 10
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:59 am

Michael V wrote:Xantos,

I saw nothing in that linked video that suggested waves, so "clearly shows" is a decided odd claim. A trillion FPS is about 9 orders of magnitude slower than c and all the light signals reaching the camera come from the scene (i.e. stimulated emission). You can't look at light using light, in the same way that a passing spaceship can't see the light between the light clock mirrors.
If the space ship passed between the mirrors, and had photographic film with very fast "film speed" (which is its ability to absorb light quickly) exposed to the path of the light pulse, it could record the position of the light pulse. There are other problems with this idea, such as the film absorbing the entire light pulse on its first detection. The duration of the observation will be really short.
Michael V wrote:I think you have not quite comprehended the basic process of vision. You cannot actually "see" objects, in that you are completely reliant on signals being sent to your eye. The scene image arrives at your retina upside down and your retina converts the signal to an electrical signal which is sent to your brain for processing and "viewing". When you move the laser pointer backwards and forwards fast enough it creates the visual effect of a line on the wall - this is similar in concept to a brand new invention called "moving pictures".. Turns out that movies are just a bit of a trick that utilizes a limitation of human visual capture and processing.
I think you, MJV, are being very pedantic. Do you think photo detector cells have to know the process you are criticizing Xantos for not understanding? I'll wager Xantos understands more about vision in his little finger than both you and your dog do, combined. (I had to edit this remark, I accidentally typed doo instead of do)
Michael V wrote:By the way, all these light waves you've been seeing, by what fundamental method have you been detecting the light signal? By what method is light only and always detected?

Michael
You, MJV, obviously did not go to his link, and read how the video was made. You should become a peer reviewer at one of the major scientific peer review rags! Your deep understanding of your own theory puts reality to shame.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

sjw40364
Guest

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by sjw40364 » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:02 pm

Siggy_G wrote:The well-known thought experiment of a photon travelling between two mirrors within a moving vessel has made me wonder about a few things. This is a random image that illustrates and exaggerates the experiment (here mentioning a light clock, but it's basically the emitted photon and the detector that is of interest):

Image

While I understand the theoretical reasoning, I'm hoping someone can answer the following:

1) Has it actually be observed that a photon (e.g. a laser line) within a high speed travelling vessel moves with it - and doesn't lag slightly behind upon rebound?

2) If so, why does it move with it after it's emitted? Does the photon act like a thrown ball that already has a velocity in the vessel's direction when an electron emits it? It certainly isn't affected by the vessel's internal medium (air), which ought to be a vacuum anyway.

3) Is the photon detector small enough for an offset to be determined? If the detector has considerable width, a lagging photon will still hit it (slightly behind it's original mirroring position).

My suspision is that the experiment is a thought experiment only, and that in a physical scenario with high enough speed, one would detect that the photon rebounds slightly behind the detector (relative to the travelling direction) as if it travelled up and down while the vessel moves away from it. My next suspision is that in such an experiment, the light pulses may have a certain conical shaped emission, where some of the angular photons hits the detector regardless of an offset. The same goes for a detector that is too wide and catches the photon regardless of an offset.

In other words, such an experiment needs to be done at high speed and/or over large travelling distances between the emitter/mirror/detector. The detector also needs to be small enough for an offset photon missing it. Does anyone know if this has been done?
The claim of detecting photons in the first place is spurious. According to classic physics, photons are emitted from electrons. Yet a photon (light) driven imaging device has less resolution than an electron imaging device. Is not the emitted smaller than the emitter???? Like saying the Earth could emit the sun. Light based imaging devices are limited by the wavelength, electrons by the size. So if photons are particles, why is wavelength a limiting factor and not particle size?

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:05 am

sjw40364 wrote:
Siggy_G wrote:The well-known thought experiment of a photon travelling between two mirrors within a moving vessel has made me wonder about a few things. This is a random image that illustrates and exaggerates the experiment (here mentioning a light clock, but it's basically the emitted photon and the detector that is of interest):

Image

While I understand the theoretical reasoning, I'm hoping someone can answer the following:

1) Has it actually be observed that a photon (e.g. a laser line) within a high speed travelling vessel moves with it - and doesn't lag slightly behind upon rebound?

2) If so, why does it move with it after it's emitted? Does the photon act like a thrown ball that already has a velocity in the vessel's direction when an electron emits it? It certainly isn't affected by the vessel's internal medium (air), which ought to be a vacuum anyway.

3) Is the photon detector small enough for an offset to be determined? If the detector has considerable width, a lagging photon will still hit it (slightly behind it's original mirroring position).

My suspision is that the experiment is a thought experiment only, and that in a physical scenario with high enough speed, one would detect that the photon rebounds slightly behind the detector (relative to the travelling direction) as if it travelled up and down while the vessel moves away from it. My next suspision is that in such an experiment, the light pulses may have a certain conical shaped emission, where some of the angular photons hits the detector regardless of an offset. The same goes for a detector that is too wide and catches the photon regardless of an offset.

In other words, such an experiment needs to be done at high speed and/or over large travelling distances between the emitter/mirror/detector. The detector also needs to be small enough for an offset photon missing it. Does anyone know if this has been done?
The claim of detecting photons in the first place is spurious. According to classic physics, photons are emitted from electrons. Yet a photon (light) driven imaging device has less resolution than an electron imaging device. Is not the emitted smaller than the emitter???? Like saying the Earth could emit the sun. Light based imaging devices are limited by the wavelength, electrons by the size. So if photons are particles, why is wavelength a limiting factor and not particle size?
Yes, light waves are larger than even atoms and molecules. I have posted this link many times on this thread. Please read it.

Also, Eric Reiter's experiments seem to prove "photons" are a myth.

The second diagram above purportedly showing a "photon" moving diagonally is Einstein's sophomoric idea that for some reason the light pulse emitted by a source somehow takes off at an angle, said angle increasing, the faster an observer is moving past the two mirrors.

His idea is nonsense as I explain in this article.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

sjw40364
Guest

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by sjw40364 » Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:28 am

Goldminer wrote:Yes, light waves are larger than even atoms and molecules. I have posted this link many times on this thread. Please read it.

Also, Eric Reiter's experiments seem to prove "photons" are a myth.

The second diagram above purportedly showing a "photon" moving diagonally is Einstein's sophomoric idea that for some reason the light pulse emitted by a source somehow takes off at an angle, said angle increasing, the faster an observer is moving past the two mirrors.

His idea is nonsense as I explain in this article.
Sorry Gold, didn't make myself very clear. I am aware that light waves are larger than the source, just as a ripple in a pond from a rock becomes larger than the rock itself. But IF and I say IF with all caps :) a photon is a particle, then why can you not use that particle to image as one does with an electron? Wavelength, and only wavelength controls the aspect of light, not particle size. I am aware of no instance where any particle is controlled by a wavelength, in fact in all experiments it is the exact opposite, a particle controls the wavelength size in any medium. So my question is, how is a photon determined to be a particle, when it has no aspect of a particle about it? All tests with light agree with wave motion, and none with particle motion. So yes, I trend to agree that photons are a meaningless concept.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:15 pm

sjw40364 wrote:
Goldminer wrote:Yes, light waves are larger than even atoms and molecules. I have posted this link many times on this thread. Please read it.

Also, Eric Reiter's experiments seem to prove "photons" are a myth.

The second diagram above purportedly showing a "photon" moving diagonally is Einstein's sophomoric idea that for some reason the light pulse emitted by a source somehow takes off at an angle, said angle increasing, the faster an observer is moving past the two mirrors.

His idea is nonsense as I explain in this article.
Sorry Gold, didn't make myself very clear. I am aware that light waves are larger than the source, just as a ripple in a pond from a rock becomes larger than the rock itself. But IF and I say IF with all caps :) a photon is a particle, then why can you not use that particle to image as one does with an electron? Wavelength, and only wavelength controls the aspect of light, not particle size. I am aware of no instance where any particle is controlled by a wavelength, in fact in all experiments it is the exact opposite, a particle controls the wavelength size in any medium. So my question is, how is a photon determined to be a particle, when it has no aspect of a particle about it? All tests with light agree with wave motion, and none with particle motion. So yes, I trend to agree that photons are a meaningless concept.
X-rays and gamma-rays are very short wave length, but the energy increases with the decrease in wave length, thus damaging the specimen. Electrons do a better job.

Regarding the discovery of the position of a pulse of light in space, the short pulse is the only way to follow its position over time. A continuous beam reveals nothing in this respect since all parts of the beam look the same; exactly when a detected portion of a continuous beam left the source cannot be determined. Einstein's use of the "photon" in his "light clock" is silly since once it is detected, it is absorbed. (not to mention, as you say: "photons are a meaningless concept.")
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by D_Archer » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:10 am

For observers time dilation and length contraction are real phenomena.

Why is the concept of relativity so butchered in this thread? Probably because the mainstream proponents actually do not understand it either but just tout the party line. A basic misunderstanding of the concept is at play.

Light can still be a particle if you give the photon spin, the spin is the wave.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:44 am

D_Archer wrote:For observers time dilation and length contraction are real phenomena.

Why is the concept of relativity so butchered in this thread? Probably because the mainstream proponents actually do not understand it either but just tout the party line. A basic misunderstanding of the concept is at play.

Light can still be a particle if you give the photon spin, the spin is the wave.

Regards,
Daniel
A short pulse of light acts as a particle, and is necessary for determining the location of the light pulse as it "moves" away from the source. This is something Einstein never though of doing. (He came close with his "Light Clock Gedanken") If he had, his whole sophomoric theory would have never come about. Time dilation and length contraction are determined by circular reasoning for which mainstream thought refuses to acknowledge.

The "photon" is just an artifact caused by the wavelength/frequency of "EM radiation" in the realm of visible light and beyond's ability to interact with the structure of atoms and molecules. (IMHO) Spinning an artifact in one's imagination can be made to do all sorts of things. The wave itself is the energy. Nothing moves through the aether with respect to radiation, except vibration.

Have you read my essay? Examine the charts and follow my instructions on how they came about.

They show how the contraction of distance is just the location of detectors in the "moving reference frame" relative to each other. The apparent contraction has no relevance to actual length contraction. Furthermore the said contraction is only in the receding sense. Einsteinians never confront the approaching situation, which is just as valid, and demonstrates expansion (as they would interpret the diagrams).
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by D_Archer » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:37 am

Goldminer wrote:They show how the contraction of distance is just the location of detectors in the "moving reference frame" relative to each other. The apparent contraction has no relevance to actual length contraction. Furthermore the said contraction is only in the receding sense. Einsteinians never confront the approaching situation, which is just as valid, and demonstrates expansion (as they would interpret the diagrams).
This. The contraction is only real for observer. In reality nothing contracts.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:23 am

D_Archer wrote:
Goldminer wrote:They show how the contraction of distance is just the location of detectors in the "moving reference frame" relative to each other. The apparent contraction has no relevance to actual length contraction. Furthermore the said contraction is only in the receding sense. Einsteinians never confront the approaching situation, which is just as valid, and demonstrates expansion (as they would interpret the diagrams).
This. The contraction is only real for observer. In reality nothing contracts.

Regards,
Daniel
Daniel, I appreciate your well thought comments. I'll partially agree with you. The "moving frame" requires multiple observers, just as the source frame requires multiple observers, to track the progress of the light pulse. The source frame observers are all positioned along the rectilinear path of the light pulse, and remain in place as the pulse bounces back and forth between the mirrors.

The moving observers are moving. Of course they do not remain in the same place as the source detectors. However, the only place the moving detectors can detect the light pulse is at the same place each source detector detects it. My diagrams show where the moving frame detectors find the light pulse, and the distances between those that detect the pulse at the same place the source detectors respectively find the light pulse.

The distance between the moving frame detectors is measured in the undistorted coordinate system of the moving frame. It is these distances that appear contracted, but only in the receding sense. The approaching sense (which Einsteinians do not acknowledge or even realize are present) shows expansion of these distances. One observer cannot follow the light pulse in either frame. This is a major fallacy (but not the only one) of Einstein's theory.

For the edification of sjw, no clocks are involved except those in the rectilinear path of the light pulse in the source reference frame. The speed of the observers is the direct speed of them, no correction needed. The "moving reference frame" is not "Transformed" or "Converted" to the source frame. Sjw is confusing ideas he has read with what I show. He has not read my essay, yet presumes to tell me all about it!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:18 am

D_Archer wrote:
Goldminer wrote:They show how the contraction of distance is just the location of detectors in the "moving reference frame" relative to each other. The apparent contraction has no relevance to actual length contraction. Furthermore the said contraction is only in the receding sense. Einsteinians never confront the approaching situation, which is just as valid, and demonstrates expansion (as they would interpret the diagrams).
This. The contraction is only real for observer. In reality nothing contracts.

Regards,
Daniel
You are thinking of the observer in motion with the source of said pulse, of course.

Well, Daniel, what I tried to point out in my last post to your comment is that one observer in motion with the source cannot find the light pulse unless said observer is actually where the light pulse is, i.e. in the path of the pulse, when the pulse passes by.

The measurements made in the reference frame opposite the source are between observers in that frame. So, nothing contracts in that frame either. All the observers/detectors in that frame are fixed distances from each other. None of them get to change places or move in relation to each other. Some detect the pulse, most do not. So, the "contraction" is not real in any case.

How the observer/detectors in the reference frame opposite the source discover the state of the pulse will differ between observers. Some will find Doppler shift, some will find aberration. These differences are due to the orientation of the relative motion of these observers to the source reference frame, and whether individual observers in this frame are approaching or receding from the light pulse.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:04 am

Einstein's light clock, using his imaginary "photon" could never report any passage of time, since he has no way to count the number of bounces. The reason is that the photon is absorbed on the first count and his light clock would stop as soon as the photon was absorbed.

A laser beam light pulse acts like a particle. Yet the pulse beam can be made large enough that many bounces of it can be counted. But this pulse cannot be measured anywhere but where it is. Detectors have to be immersed in the pulse while it passes in order to detect it.

The light pulse can only be found traveling the path between the mirrors. The only place to detect the pulse is on this path. Observers, or detectors moving past the mirrors and the light pulse, no matter how fast they move or what angle they approach and recede from the location of the mirrors and the path of the light pulse, can never cause the mirrors to skew, or the light pulse to change its angle/path in relation to the faces of the mirrors.

Therefore, Einstein's argument that there is a diagonal going "photon" is a joke, or at the least a sophomoric fantasy. Since his diagonal going "photon" fantasy is nonsense, and it is the foundation of the rest of his "theory," his theory collapses like a house of cards.

If you wish to have the light pulse leave either mirror at an angle in order to reach another mirror directly opposite said mirror, without physically changing the angle of the laser injecting said light pulse, but instead, by moving a detector through the path of said light pulse, or conversely moving the "light clock" through the detector, you have a lot of explaining to do.

Firstly your detector, even though it passes through the path of the light pulse, will not detect the pulse unless it serendipitously arrives at the position the pulse occupies in the path at the instant the detector crosses said path.

Secondly, even if your detector is able to determine the angle of incidence, any change in angle of incidence because of motion is explained by aberration, and aberration only appears in transverse motion between the light pulse and detector. Einstein's theory cannot be applied when the motion of detectors is rectilinear (parallel to the light path) rather than transverse, there is no possibility of anything skewing in that case.

Thirdly, The light clock itself only requires a detector located at each mirror to count the bounces of the light pulse. That would be only two detectors.

Two moving detectors passing the mirrors can only detect one bounce of the pulse, and only then if they happen to pass the detectors attached to the mirrors, exactly when the light pulse is momentarily there too.

Now, if you actually happen to be thinking as you read this explanation, it should be obvious that the said moving detectors must be skewed in relation to their motion, and position related to each other, in order for each one to arrive at each respective mirror when the pulse alternately arrives at each mirror. The moving detectors are skewed, not the light pulse and mirrors.

Therefor, no contraction of space, and no dilation of time.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
Influx
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Influx » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:04 pm

I just read the whole thread and still do not understand what all of you are arguing about.

I have thought about this thought experiment for quite some time without really gaining any insight.

I designed a huge one light-year clock in my head, where one tick(one second) would be symbolically represented by the light traveling to the observer over a light-year.

The stationery clock is pretty straight forward. Shine a light, and wait for it, a year later it arrives.

Now onto the moving clock. The light source and the observer are both moving at the speed of light. Facing each other a light year apart. Lets say they are both moving to the right of your keyboard. The emitter shines a light at ninety degrees to his direction of travel straight at the observer. What happens next?

The observer would never see the light, since he would have traveled a light-year in the meantime. The light would arrive a light-year to the observers right (remember he is facing you).

How if you look at the distance traveled by the light from where it was initially shined at the observer it will be the same as of the clock that is stationary. That is one light-year. So both clocks are synchronized.

No time dilation.

However, What happens when you incorporate into the equations the distance the emitter and the observer have traveled?

Since all of them, the emitter and the observer and the light beam have traveled a light-year, the equations need to account for the distance traveled. And since nothing travels faster than the speed of light, but the the distance between the light and the observer would be two light-years, you either allow for faster than light travel or time dilation.

I spent a great deal thinking about this huge clock flying through space, and the only thing I learned is there is no way it will behave as the cool looking animations on the wed, especially if you make it huge.

In my experiment I see no time dilation, all I see is the distance between the light and the emitter increasing faster than light.
Today is the yesterday of tomorrow.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:31 pm

Influx wrote:I just read the whole thread and still do not understand what all of you are arguing about. I have thought about this thought experiment for quite some time without really gaining any insight. I designed a huge one light-year clock in my head, where one tick(one second) would be symbolically represented by the light traveling to the observer over a light-year. The stationery clock is pretty straight forward. Shine a light, and wait for it, a year later it arrives.

Now onto the moving clock. The light source and the observer are both moving at the speed of light. Facing each other a light year apart. Lets say they are both moving to the right of your keyboard. The emitter shines a light at ninety degrees to his direction of travel straight at the observer. What happens next? The observer would never see the light, since he would have traveled a light-year in the meantime. The light would arrive a light-year to the observers right (remember he is facing you). How if you look at the distance traveled by the light from where it was initially shined at the observer it will be the same as of the clock that is stationary. That is one light-year. So both clocks are synchronized.

No time dilation.

However, What happens when you incorporate into the equations the distance the emitter and the observer have traveled? Since all of them, the emitter and the observer and the light beam have traveled a light-year, the equations need to account for the distance traveled. And since nothing travels faster than the speed of light, but the the distance between the light and the observer would be two light-years, you either allow for faster than light travel or time dilation.

I spent a great deal thinking about this huge clock flying through space, and the only thing I learned is there is no way it will behave as the cool looking animations on the wed, especially if you make it huge. In my experiment I see no time dilation, all I see is the distance between the light and the emitter increasing faster than light.
Einstein tried to explain things as related to clocks and time. His whole idea is impossible to understand. Rather than try to deal with whole second time divisions and lightyear distances, use the fact that these immense distances reduce to mere feet if one uses nanosecond time divisions. Rather than light years, use lightnanoseconds. One lightnanosecond is only a foot.

Secondly, Einstein did a lot of imagining. He just imagined that a light pulse would appear disassociated from the source if the observer was moving very fast. What I have shown (if you go off site and view my essay) is that Einstein never did determine exactly where observers in the source mirror reference frame would actually observe the light pulse as it bounced between the mirrors. (The mirrors are only 10 feet apart.)

Knowing this information, and knowing that moving observers can only see the light pulse where "stationary" observers see the pulse, one can easily conclude that your conclusion is right.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Metryq » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:55 pm

Siggy_G wrote:3) Is the photon detector small enough for an offset to be determined?
I think the "offset" you are looking for is called "aberration." The following may be food for thought:

Relativity Challenge, Michelson-Morley Experiment
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/archives/304

See also "The Sound Analogy" (p 72) in Tom Van Flandern's book DARK MATTER, MISSING PLANETS AND NEW COMETS.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests