As I await Pasta’s reply (erm, waited)… note: I hope he will forgive me for giving the whole scenario, but there seemed to be no sense in giving a partial one either if there were no misunderstood points, so he may consider that post to be as long as he wants till an error is hit, I hope this meets the definition of going slow.
Anyway many fake articles have been published in scientific journals that wouldn’t touch my stuff no matter how much math it contained.
They are written by computer! Which goes to show how easy it is to fake something, you confuse people till like the Emperor who ‘seems naked’ no one wants to pretend they don’t understand it, and it’s not a theory it works!
Not really, since you are spreading your symptoms all over the board so everybody can see. And for a professional to suggest that you are manifesting symptoms of a specific condition is not an insult, it’s a favor.
You are using a non-fact to support your argument. The fact is that, at that time, people from Brazil to Russia were working to solve the problem of heavier-than-air flight, and the Wrights mostly kept a lid on it until they worked out their patents. The people who laughed at the Wrights did it after they had flown because folks in Yurp didn’t think “zose seely Americains” could do what they couldn’t. And they weren’t “lowly bicycle mechanics,” like they were even called in my history books. In 1903 bikes were high tech, the Wrights manufactured good ones, and their workshop was cutting edge, including an early wind tunnel.
And it’s completely wrong to suggest that people laughed at Alexander Graham Bell; the telephone was a logical outcome of technologies invented before it and Elisha Gray filed for his patent (under a broad definition of “filed” that Gray could have contested) TWO HOURS BEFORE Bell. They All Laughed is not good history and should not be cited.
Take a deep breath and LEARN SOMETHING before you shoot your mouth off. My father thought he could find a way to square the circle, but like you he was nuts.
Hi Pasta, my reply in the first section went long, it is in my opinion good but I accept if you skip it, at least in your first reading, a really short version is that I agree with you, but… And some of it is said again later in the message also.
Well, in my opinion it doesn’t imply time dilation, rather it implies time acceleration.
I suppose in the simple form and if we allow a growing time paradox to arise in the same area of space, then it occurs to the moving frame that his time has accelerated but only because the other has slowed.
But the view seems odd from the static frame since the moving frame with the faster clock should be seen to slow, so it is both faster and slower, now you would be correct in noting that we have just confirmed the expectation of SR, which is naturally paradoxical but accepted.
Now as I said further down in the initial email I view rotating frames to be a huge problem if all observers in a stationary frame see clocks on a rotating frame as going slower overall than theirs (not counting Doppler) because if I speed away from you then every inch away I get the failure of simultaneity gets larger and larger as the accumulated discrepancy of time accumulates.
It is hard to disagree that even a 100 year paradox of time means much if non-simultaneity is of a similar magnitude there is no demonstration of a paradox.
But if non-simultaneity remains low and doesn’t grow, then the time paradox of 100 years when communication delay is a tiny fraction of a second can only describe unreality, and if the disk is stopped in an instant then each has different expectations of the other and since they can’t be both can’t be right then one must be wrong, so one must see the other age the missing 100 years in an instant.
If you propose time dilation does not happen in a rotating disk under SR my reply would be:
I would view this a significant demonstration of the paradox, and if rotating frames aren’t assumed to experience time dilation under SR to remove this paradox then the apparently dis-proven time dilation under GR that is related to G-force not linear velocity can’t be used so we end up with rotating frames able to see a light clock from the stationary frame to meet the expectation of C since no remaining time dilation can explain this paradox and length contraction is in the wrong axis to have and effect on the light clock.
GR time dilation has been experimentally disproven in an experiment with muons, so I will drop GR for now as it seems pointless to kill it twice.
Yes!
We could have such a meter that counts ticks collected from all the sources.
Now it would be one thing to suggest that the realities conflict in their expectation.
But to me asking what frame the odometer is in is passing the contradictions down the line, you can do that, but then 2 different odometers find conflicting data from both the sensors and now we have 2 odometers that conflict and each contains self conflicting data.
The heart of the of the matter is that a time paradox that collects a large amount of time discrepancy (100 years) symmetrically from a a 90%-99% difference in time over .1 of a mm becomes so obviously impossible that if we stopped the experiment we would demand either both discrepancy to still exist (unspeakable), or at least one to resolve the missing time.
I admit the experiment in the 1st post suffers from me not making SR’s prime axiom first and then working out the rest which makes the argument I originally argued misconfigured, not entirely wrong but not solvable if clocks are observed.
These are fine questions and we can work those details out, but they are making for a complex picture.
But I would assert that if you have 2 flat transparent sensor sheets a tiny distance apart (.1mm) in 2 different frames of motion they could be given enough intelligence to communicate with the other one when it receives a photon.
If these observations lines up then they must share the same view of reality, they both detect the same photon at the same instant the same number of red and blue photons in the same locations.
If they both detect the same photon in the same instant then the discrepancy that must exist for light to be C in both frames has failed the the speed of light is not C.
If however a photon triggers a sensor sheet and this sheet notes that it did not receive an atto second (guess) later or before a message from the other sheet in that approximate location, and that sheet would record it saw a signal without a photon soon before or after.
I am actually fine with this second possibility, but it does have the result that a photons position is smeared over different frames at once, and this is not SR’s claim and since the speed of the photon is correct for that frame time dilation and length contraction would have no involvement in light being measured as C and could only measure the light as C if the light were effected by these transformations also.
Additionally if a sensor has sees a photon but the other sensor hasn’t yet (forget reflections for a moment), it could detect the same photon twice by quickly accelerating to meet the velocity of the other frame so it double dips and detects it twice.
Other fascinating possibilities exist in that effect as you could have telescopes that see how stars looked further back in the pas than our regular view or take a sneak peak into the future be moving at high velocity toward or away from the star!
It is such a fascinating concept I wish I actually believed it.
Additionally if the experiment were to be conducted with the extra issue of it being more dramatic with rotation (continued in time but everything is close in space) I would suggest the mirrors be concentric but with a small gap so that the different curvature doesn’t do funny things with trying to imagine the light reflecting in the same manner, this does not change the spirit of the experiment it just continues it and constrains simultaneity to a relatively small consideration.
Only vaguely as this variation only came to me this morning.
Actually I did consider how to ensure equal time delay in the first experiment in post 1 of the thread and to me it had no net effect, but the linear version has some difficulties which is why I like to keep things from getting too far away.
Cool.
Sorry for being overlong. It is a consequence of being misunderstood.
The speed of light is something that can be relied upon to remain dependable, and enjoyable, like wine. Speaking of wine, here’s a video that shows a really simple way to turn fruit juice into wine: How to make Inmate Brew (Must be of drinking age) - YouTube
idle thoughts moved it here primarily (but indirectly) because of something said by Itself.
User ‘Itself’ knowing I could not read math at all presented an equation that I obviously not address until I improved my math skill significantly, so since I couldn’t I didn’t.
He then said I “refused” to which made me reply that I also refuse to read all languages other than English by the same reasoning, I then challenged him to describe my thought experiment (the math did was not my thought experiment) in some large point font.
Correction to post above: (regarding rotating frames possibly not experiencing time dilation.)
If you propose time dilation does not happen in a rotating disk under SR my reply would be:
I would view this a significant demonstration of the paradox, and if rotating frames aren’t assumed to experience time dilation under SR to remove this paradox then the apparently dis-proven time dilation under GR that is related to G-force not linear velocity can’t be used.
So we end up with rotating frames able to see a light clock in the stationary frame with no way to meet the expectation of C since no remaining time dilation can explain this paradox and length contraction is in the wrong axis to have and effect on the light clock.
So time dilation under SR must occur in a rotating frame, and not just perfectly linear (is there such a thing) frame.
What about my post, mythoughts? I was pretty disappointed to see you ignore it, since I took the time to write it (and fetch and code links) on my phone because I thought it would be useful and interesting to you. You’ve said several times that mathematical explanations of SR are useless for you and I found what looks to be a really interesting and free online course that will specifically avoid math and explain SR.
And then you completely ignored it. And then include me in the group you’re calling disingenuous and are disgusted at.
Firstly I did not mean to imply everybody, and that is why I said ‘sure’ not ‘certain’ so please don’t take any offence. Being unsure does not mean much.
As to your post I have no recollection if it, maybe I missed it, or some other reason. I’ll search the 6 pages of this thread, but I want to check, was it in this thread or another?
On a separate note, in my reply to **Pasta **it now occurs to me (doh) that the experiment with the 2 parallel transparent sensors communicating with each other would need a massive alteration if they are to encounter the problem I explained regularly. And the alteration I can think of has some minor issues with non-simultaneity so I will need to give this more thought. (hey, I thought of it on the fly)
The argument that the Twin Paradox becomes a genuine problem for a rotating frame however I still assert is correct.
You know, it’s threads like this one that makes me think we were sometimes short-sighted in demanding an end to pay-to-post. I could definitely read Gardner’s whole chapter “Down with Einstein!” in a fraction of the time reading this whole thread would take.
I find the “issues” of rotating reference frames interesting. Is there a way the knowledgeable people here could examine a more well defined thought experiment a la mythoughts’ hot mess (I really think the main issues with it is with “almost in the same place”) to help me expand my understanding of relativity? Could I open a new thread and if so, what forum would be appropriate?
First thing, I have been told by different mods different things, but they don’t like this discussion about relativity and the advice I have had is generally to drop it, but for now they are holding off on booting me off for essentially insubstantial nonsense I’m spouting.
In other words they are taking a sides in this, but allowing me to continue.
My point is not to inflame them, but to explain that if I stop communicating for more than a day or 2 that is what has occurred, unless I say otherwise before hand.
Pasta reply 2…
Ok, I have realized that I have a stronger argument to make by dropping the red/blue argument as it runs into the difficulties you expressed.
You see 2 things are gong on here, in a way my thought experiments are getting better and more conclusive as I sharpen my teeth on the opposition, and I am getting tired and making posts late at night when I am tired, and today I woke up really early
So they are also getting worse too in a way, lack of sleep.
This means I ask if you follow the arguments made in the previous post about non-simultaneity being bound but the time described by the paradox growing to levels that are unacceptable, then please investigate that.
Ignore the red-blue photon concept for now.
I actually have 2 ideas that I can tell are good (well as much as I can this tired), one is a disproof of the Wikipedia time dilation light clock (I think) but I can recognise I am in no shape to present it right now, so please stand by.
And sorry for wasting your time on that one, won’t happen again I promise.
“Opinion” is a word that seems out of place here. It either does or doesn’t imply time dilation, which should be a matter of logical deduction. If I follow the steps myself, I see no error in the logical deduction that a constant speed of light implies time dilation. Do you see an error in the logical deduction? If so, in which step?
I’m happy to drop GR, although that means the spinning disk experiment goes with it since “regular” physics requires GR to predict what happens there. However, what is this muon experiment you mention? I am not aware of any experiment with muons that disproves GR.
I agree that they could be made to communicate in some way, but I don’t think I can agree yet that the communication is trivial and doesn’t introduce any subtleties into the interpretation of the experiment.
This is a principle challenge with thought experiments. We have a privileged, omniscient view since we are the thinker of the experiment. However, the characters in the experiment cannot see everything we can. They are limited to what they can physically measure or what information can be transmitted from point A, time A to point B, time B. Since we are dealing with theortical frameworks that muck up the very concepts of space and time and light transport, I would worry that glossing over the exact mechanism of measurement and comparison might be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Do you think this is a valid concern? Could it be that the inconsistent measurements we are hitting are actually because we are viewing the experiment in a way that no real observer could? Perhaps when we think through the nuances of the measurement and the data comparisons, we’ll discover that the mucked up concepts of space and time make things happy again?
I’ve said it before, but I disagree with this, if the background is Minkwoski spacetime, then you only need special relativity. You don’t need the additional postulate of GR to describe accelerated observers. The confusion arises because of the difficulties in constructing spatially extended frames of reference for arbitrary observers, but global frames of reference are a theoretical construct and it’s not required that a global frame of reference must be constructed in special relativity or indeed general relativity for an observer in order to match the physical predictions of the theory to that observer.
Fair enough, and I agree with this. My goal is to remove the spinning disk from the discussion for now as there are other, more accessible fish in the frying pan.
