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

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by David » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:34 pm

Goldminer wrote:Dave, please read my essay, linked here. It is a direct response to this thread.
Just read your article. I am particularly impressed by this:

“The pattern (or array) of the detectors necessary to detect the said rectilinear going pulse in any relativistic transversely moving reference frame do form a zigzag geometry, however this geometry is not the pulse itself. The zigzag is the placement of detectors in the moving frame that correspond respectively and coincidentally with each successive detector in the source frame.”

That is a brilliant observation. The light pulse isn’t moving in a zigzag pattern, it’s moving in a straight line. It’s the motion and arrangement of the detectors that produce the diagonal path; not the light pulse itself. This throws Einstein’s whole theory into disarray.

Great insight and an excellent article!

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

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:39 pm

David wrote:
Goldminer wrote:Dave, please read my essay, linked here. It is a direct response to this thread.
Just read your article. I am particularly impressed by this:

“The pattern (or array) of the detectors necessary to detect the said rectilinear going pulse in any relativistic transversely moving reference frame do form a zigzag geometry, however this geometry is not the pulse itself. The zigzag is the placement of detectors in the moving frame that correspond respectively and coincidentally with each successive detector in the source frame.”

That is a brilliant observation. The light pulse isn’t moving in a zigzag pattern, it’s moving in a straight line. It’s the motion and arrangement of the detectors that produce the diagonal path; not the light pulse itself. This throws Einstein’s whole theory into disarray.

Great insight and an excellent article!
Thanks, Dave! And congratulations, You are the first to report back to me that you understand!

I am overjoyed! I was pretty sure that someone at the Thunderbolt forum would "get it!" Can you please post your comment at the FQXI site? It is quite simple to log in, and the boost to the essay's standing would be immense, I think!

I read a quote from Einstein that he developed his theory as it is because "nothing interesting happens otherwise." I failed to record the occasion, and cannot find it again. Well, it is true! Nothing very interesting happens, except that relativity becomes easy to understand when the truth is known! (and no silly illogical physical distortions either!)

BTW, Thanks to the forum for putting up with my ramblings. Each response, especially those who disagree, helped further my own understanding.

I did notice a misuse of a word at the end of the third paragraph. "antecedent" should be "post emission." Mention the mistake in your post, it will show that you are really up to speed!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by David » Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:01 pm

Goldminer wrote:Can you please post your comment at the FQXI site?
Before commenting at the FQXI site, I want to make sure that I fully understand exactly how your theory deviates from Einstein’s second postulate:

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.


I agree completely with your analysis that light remains centered on the emitter; it’s an outstanding observation. However, the essay doesn’t specifically mention the second postulate, pinpoint where it’s wrong, and how your theory differs from it. Would you please elaborate on the distinct differences between your theory and Einstein’s second postulate? Or better yet, rewrite the second postulate so that it agrees with your theory.

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

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:16 pm

David wrote:
Goldminer wrote:Can you please post your comment at the FQXI site?
Before commenting at the FQXI site, I want to make sure that I fully understand exactly how your theory deviates from Einstein’s second postulate:

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.


I agree completely with your analysis that light remains centered on the emitter; it’s an outstanding observation. However, the essay doesn’t specifically mention the second postulate, pinpoint where it’s wrong, and how your theory differs from it. Would you please elaborate on the distinct differences between your theory and Einstein’s second postulate? Or better yet, rewrite the second postulate so that it agrees with your theory.
The difference I have with the second postulate is that while the at rest with the source expanding wave front is centered upon the source, and the second postulate allows for that, I find that a set of "moving observers" also find the expanding wave front to be centered upon the source. This definitely contradicts Einstein, et al.

The second postulate does not rule out the source centered expanding sphere in any inertial reference frame. Albert just states the any incoming light will measure (in vacuo) 299,792,458 metres per second. This places the moving source sphere lost in space, while leaving the at rest with the source sphere centered upon the source. People should immediately be able to see how illogical this idea is. Some propose that the "moving sphere" is ellipsoidal. That is what I thought early on. It doesn't work either.

After long discussions with my friend Steve Waterman, (Woldemar, "apples and apples" ) I discovered the problem with the "Galilean Transform," and how to really include the expanding sphere of light in the coordinate system. The key is measuring each ordinate of the coordinate system with the unit speed of light: by using one foot per nanosecond increments. With the immense speed and distance usually discussed, it is very hard for anyone to concentrate on anything else. This reduces the scale to manageable proportions and allows "time" to be included in three dimensions. Unfortunately, I never could convince him of my discovery.

Anyway, this simple method includes "time" in the three dimensional coordinate system . . . no need for time to be placed on an illogical "fourth axis." All the "fourth dimension" math does is just twist the fourth axis around to whichever third dimension point is getting the attention.

Here is a history of determining the speed of light. As you can read, the speed is determined within the Solar System, or locally with a stationary source. There has never been a direct measurement of the speed of light from a moving source. Everyone assumes two clocks are necessary to do the measurement. This is not so. All that is needed is an electronic high speed counter, and two photo actuated switches, one to start the counter, and one to stop it. They are connected to the counter by equal length cables. The up stream switch starts the counter, the down steam switch stops it. The counter provides the duration the light pulse spends traveling the distance between switches. The setup will measure any incoming pulse of light from whatever source.

The fact that the at rest with the source light pulse is not Doppler shifted makes this reference system special and unique. The fact that unfocused omni-radiating light radiates from the source at the speed of light in all directions means that the radiation is spherically centered upon the source. Most physics courses teach this. They are at a loss to explain how this sphere looses its concentric connection with the source in order to comply with Einstein's theory. They never mention the Doppler shift of the incoming light from a source in relative motion with the detector, in the same paragraph with the statement of Einstein's second postulate. Maybe it's too uncomfortable?

The incomplete Voigt "Galilean Transform," placing "time" on a fourth axis, and Einstein's word picture of the diagonal going transverse "photon" seem to be all the evidence needed to convince everyone that this explains the contraction of space and dilation of time, that Poincare, Lorentz, et al theorized. My third diagram, (the longitudinal going reference frame) is just as revealing as the transverse zigzag diagram, I believe.)

David, I hope this helps. I have found that asking questions is the best way to gain attention. Any comment at all gives me something with which to comment. Thanks! I need a straight man sounding board.

Now, there are many thinkers out there with their own theories of why Einstein is wrong. None that I have found have investigated the points that I have related. But there are so many "Johnny come latelys" promulgating theories, that I have little hope of being recognized, or these things in my essay being considered. Everyone of us is just another "crackpot" waving and jumping up and down for attention. Who has time to really understand what I have revealed? I can't blame anyone for just a cursory look and a brush off. I certainly appreciate you David, as well as MJV, Ardwolf, Klypt, Siggy, and all who have posted to the various OP threads etc.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Michael V » Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:23 am

Xantos,
Xantos wrote:There becomes a line, not a dot on the wall. My brother says it's because of how my eyes work but I think this is just another example of lights wavefront nature.
When you go to the cinema, do you sit and watch a movie, or do you sit and watch 150,000 still pictures shown consecutively?

Your eyes are only photon receptors, the image that you "see" is in your brain/visual-cortex. A considerable amount of what we "see", especially with regard to motion, is due to internal image compensation. Be wary of trusting your what you "see".

Michael

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Michael V » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:08 am

Goldminer,
Now, there are many thinkers out there with their own theories of why Einstein is wrong. None that I have found have investigated the points that I have related. But there are so many "Johnny come latelys" promulgating theories, that I have little hope of being recognized, or these things in my essay being considered. Everyone of us is just another "crackpot" waving and jumping up and down for attention. Who has time to really understand what I have revealed? I can't blame anyone for just a cursory look and a brush off.
Very good sir. I believe all of us, and certainly myself, think of our efforts in much the same way as you have described in these few sentences.

The success of Einstein's theories, and indeed pretty much the entire Standard Model, is due to a set of historical and sociopolitical coincidences, rather than as a victory for scientific and intellectual objectivity. That said, it is consistent enough within the belief system that encompasses it. In effect, you need to believe before you can understand. If you believe that light and the universe behaves in the manner described then you can understand why it behaves that way. If you don't believe then you are forced to compare the theory as presented with physical reality only to find a mismatch which further instills an unwillingness to believe. Relativity and the Standard Model do not require objective proof, or even objective logic, since they are supported by the social politic. Many "scientific" theories stood for hundreds or thousands of years based only the fact that they were a "default" setting in the minds of the academic and scientific populace.

I am not swayed by you apparent dis-proof of SR, and I now realise that is because is based on your belief that light behaves in a manner that is at odds with my own theoretical interpretations. You, of course, suffer from a mutual incredulity when presented with ideas based on a line of reasoning that does fall within your logical parameters.

With that said:
David wrote:The whole point of this tread is to determine whether or not the light pulse is truly independent of its source. That is, does light have the same lateral motion as its source? Is anyone aware of tests that have proved this one way or the other?
Xantos wrote:Since travelling at the speed of light is not feasible in the forseeable future...why not conduct an experiment with a laser, ultra slow-motion camera and a condensate that slows light to a more humane and practical speeds for experimentation? Shouldn't this kind of experiment prove or disprove that light supposedly "bends" with distance? Like they put model airplanes in a wind tunnel, they should test a light ray in a laboratory condition.
Light only travels at c (or between c and 2c if Goldminer is correct). Light travelling through other mediums is just following a tortuous reflection path. The light that goes in is not the light that comes out the other end.
As a visual aid, consider a falling dominoes: the "electron" on one end transmits the light signal (represented here as motion). The signal is transmitted through the "medium" and out the other end. If the intervening "electrons" are arranged in a more complex serpentine pattern the signal has to travel further within the medium and that gives the appearance of a slower velocity. Suffice it to say, this experiment is not testing a direct light signal.
Goldminer wrote:All that is needed is an electronic high speed counter, and two photo actuated switches, one to start the counter, and one to stop it. They are connected to the counter by equal length cables. The up stream switch starts the counter, the down steam switch stops it. The counter provides the duration the light pulse spends traveling the distance between switches. The setup will measure any incoming pulse of light from whatever source.
How do you account for the motion of the photo actuated switches? And, also, by your theory of v+c how do you account for the motion of the emitter?


Michael

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

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:23 pm

Michael V wrote:Goldminer,
I am not swayed by you apparent dis-proof of SR, and I now realise that is because is based on your belief that light behaves in a manner that is at odds with my own theoretical interpretations. You, of course, suffer from a mutual incredulity when presented with ideas based on a line of reasoning that does fall within your logical parameters.
You can phrase my beliefs any way you like, probably none of which have anything to do with my beliefs. You apparently have no clue about what I believe, and no clue about reality for that matter. I have presented a logical coherent method for determining where a pulse of light can be found in space, whether the detectors are moving with the source, i.e. at rest with it, or in relative motion with the source. The presentation is straight forward, and does not need to consider the state of the solar system, galaxy, or universe. You are attempting to obfuscate and distract. My incredulity is toward your efforts to undermine the topic.
Michael V wrote:With that said:
David wrote:The whole point of this tread is to determine whether or not the light pulse is truly independent of its source. That is, does light have the same lateral motion as its source? Is anyone aware of tests that have proved this one way or the other?
Subsequent posts by David show that he understands what I propose. I have no idea whether he believes it or not, but at least he understands what I have proposed. It is very simple. "Logical parameters" are your road block, not mine. I understand what you are "demonstrating," and it is irrelevant to this topic, whether your explanations make sense or not.
Michael V wrote:
Xantos wrote:Since travelling at the speed of light is not feasible in the forseeable future...why not conduct an experiment with a laser, ultra slow-motion camera and a condensate that slows light to a more humane and practical speeds for experimentation? Shouldn't this kind of experiment prove or disprove that light supposedly "bends" with distance? Like they put model airplanes in a wind tunnel, they should test a light ray in a laboratory condition.
Light only travels at c (or between c and 2c if Goldminer is correct). Light travelling through other mediums is just following a tortuous reflection path. The light that goes in is not the light that comes out the other end.
As a visual aid, consider a falling dominoes: the "electron" on one end transmits the light signal (represented here as motion). The signal is transmitted through the "medium" and out the other end. If the intervening "electrons" are arranged in a more complex serpentine pattern the signal has to travel further within the medium and that gives the appearance of a slower velocity. Suffice it to say, this experiment is not testing a direct light signal.
Xantos, you have my permission to ignore this explanation by MJV, as if you need my permission. It has nothing to do with measuring the speed of light.
Michael V wrote:
Goldminer wrote:All that is needed is an electronic high speed counter, and two photo actuated switches, one to start the counter, and one to stop it. They are connected to the counter by equal length cables. The up stream switch starts the counter, the down steam switch stops it. The counter provides the duration the light pulse spends traveling the distance between switches. The setup will measure any incoming pulse of light from whatever source.
How do you account for the motion of the photo actuated switches? And, also, by your theory of v+c how do you account for the motion of the emitter?
Michael
Usually one cannot get into trouble asking questions. You are the exception. Please read the following slowly: The switches and the counter and the technician running the experiment are all at rest with each other. (Well, the technician gets to move around the Lab, but that is nether here nor there.) That means they are all in the same reference frame. They are not "moving."

The emitter/source can be in this same reference frame, as well. In this case we already know that the in vacuo speed of light is one foot per nanosecond. The speed of the moving emitter/source is referenced to this reference frame, not to the Sun, Galaxy, or Universe, therefore its speed can be determined any number of ways.

Get it?

It can be accelerating or not. I don't care. The speed of the light pulse is directly measured as it passes through the speed trap I propose. No mirrors, rotating wheels etc. required. I predict the speed will be c+ or - v, "v" being the velocity of the moving emitter. If the emitter is accelerating, measurement of successive light pulses from the moving emitter will show increasing or decreasing velocity, depending upon which direction the emitter is moving.

.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by David » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:04 pm

Goldminer wrote:The fact that the at rest with the source light pulse is not Doppler shifted makes this reference system special and unique. The fact that unfocused omni-radiating light radiates from the source at the speed of light in all directions means that the radiation is spherically centered upon the source. Most physics courses teach this. They are at a loss to explain how this sphere looses its concentric connection with the source in order to comply with Einstein's theory. They never mention the Doppler shift of the incoming light from a source in relative motion with the detector, in the same paragraph with the statement of Einstein's second postulate. Maybe it's too uncomfortable?
Thanks for the response. I'm attempting to put the two theories side-by-side, so I can see the distinct differences between the two. Is this an accurate comparison?

Einstein:
1) light propagates 100% independently of the source of emission
2) Lorentz transforms are required to move from one inertial reference system to another.
3) Time dilation and length contraction are a necessary result.

Goldminer:
1) light remains centered on the source of emission (Newtonian c+v)
2) Doppler shifts must be considered when moving from one inertial reference system to another.
3) No time dilation or length contraction is required.

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Michael V » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:31 am

David,
David wrote:Einstein:
1) light propagates 100% independently of the source of emission
2) Lorentz transforms are required to move from one inertial reference system to another.
3) Time dilation and length contraction are a necessary result.

Goldminer:
1) light remains centered on the source of emission (Newtonian c+v)
2) Doppler shifts must be considered when moving from one inertial reference system to another.
3) No time dilation or length contraction is required.
OR

1) Light propagates 100% independently of the source of emission
2) There are no VALID inertial reference frames in an accelerating universe.
3) There is No time dilation or length contraction in a physical universe.


Michael

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

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:34 am

Michael V wrote:David,
David wrote:Einstein:
1) light propagates 100% independently of the source of emission
2) Lorentz transforms are required to move from one inertial reference system to another.
3) Time dilation and length contraction are a necessary result.

Goldminer:
1) light remains centered on the source of emission (Newtonian c+v)
2) Doppler shifts must be considered when moving from one inertial reference system to another.
3) No time dilation or length contraction is required.
OR
Michael V wrote:1) Light propagates 100% independently of the source of emission
Wrong, If what you say were true, the GPS system would not function.
Michael V wrote:2) There are no VALID inertial reference frames in an accelerating universe.
If the Universe were accelerating, everything in it would be thrown to the back of it. There is no sign of your acceleration. Red shifted objects do not seem to be increasing their red shift, in fact, Halton Arp shows that in very many cases, the red shift is decreasing (for QUASARs and BL Lacs).
Michael V wrote:3) There is No time dilation or length contraction in a physical universe.
You have not explained why this is true. My essay does in fact explain why.

.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Xantos
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:11 am

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Xantos » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:16 am

Michael V wrote:
Xantos wrote:Since travelling at the speed of light is not feasible in the forseeable future...why not conduct an experiment with a laser, ultra slow-motion camera and a condensate that slows light to a more humane and practical speeds for experimentation? Shouldn't this kind of experiment prove or disprove that light supposedly "bends" with distance? Like they put model airplanes in a wind tunnel, they should test a light ray in a laboratory condition.
Light only travels at c (or between c and 2c if Goldminer is correct). Light travelling through other mediums is just following a tortuous reflection path. The light that goes in is not the light that comes out the other end.
As a visual aid, consider a falling dominoes: the "electron" on one end transmits the light signal (represented here as motion). The signal is transmitted through the "medium" and out the other end. If the intervening "electrons" are arranged in a more complex serpentine pattern the signal has to travel further within the medium and that gives the appearance of a slower velocity. Suffice it to say, this experiment is not testing a direct light signal.

Michael
I believe you don't understand what I'm trying to achieve. Well, if you don't like that experiment, we could take the "$1 billon" approach and shoot the video of the moving laser light with abnormaly high speed camera. The result would be the same, regardless of the "slow mo jelly" or "absurdly fast camera". If it [light] propagates as a wave it's propagation nature is still wave like through any medium. Get it now?

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Michael V » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:54 pm

Xantos,
Xantos wrote:If it [light] propagates as a wave it's propagation nature is still wave like through any medium. Get it now?
Light does not propagate as a wave, and it most certainly does not propagate as a wave through ANY medium.

And exactly how are you intending to utilise a high speed camera? Will this camera have a mechanism that allows it to operate faster than c? Objects that travel faster than c are very difficult to come by in this universe. So , no, I do not get it now. I would be grateful for a more detailed explanation.


Michael

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

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Goldminer » Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:10 pm

Michael V wrote:Xantos,
Xantos wrote:If it [light] propagates as a wave it's propagation nature is still wave like through any medium. Get it now?
Light does not propagate as a wave, and it most certainly does not propagate as a wave through ANY medium.

And exactly how are you intending to utilise a high speed camera? Will this camera have a mechanism that allows it to operate faster than c? Objects that travel faster than c are very difficult to come by in this universe. So , no, I do not get it now. I would be grateful for a more detailed explanation.
Michael
OK, Xantos, we have the irrefutable, infallible word from God . . . Light is not a wave!



MJV, your proclamations are making you look sillier and sillier! Apparently your ship came in and you weren't on it. Look up the term cognitive dissonance. The reason you don't get it is you!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Xantos
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:11 am

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Xantos » Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:13 am

Michael V wrote:Xantos,
Xantos wrote:If it [light] propagates as a wave it's propagation nature is still wave like through any medium. Get it now?
Light does not propagate as a wave, and it most certainly does not propagate as a wave through ANY medium.

And exactly how are you intending to utilise a high speed camera? Will this camera have a mechanism that allows it to operate faster than c? Objects that travel faster than c are very difficult to come by in this universe. So , no, I do not get it now. I would be grateful for a more detailed explanation.


Michael
Oh, really? It does not propagate as a waveform? LINK This link clearly shows waveform propagation. And a very short laser pulse (femto-second laser) and shot with a trillion FPS. So...this experiment clearly supports my claim that light propagates as a wave through Universe AND that it should be possible to realize my experiment to show laser dot lag that otherwise is not present to the naked eye because it is to fast to notice. Please provide links to experiments showing otherwise. Through which medium does it not propagate as a wave? Space? How can light propagate through the Universe AND through materials? There must be a common medium everywhere for EM waveforms. A wave longitudinal or transversal can't propagate without a medium. That's the longest lasting fallacy of modern physics (to say there's no EM medium). Michael, why refute the only thing that's constant in the Universe - fractal nature of it?

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Unread post by Michael V » Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:50 am

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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests