I’ll answer this. Linear motion is – in effect – circular motion with a radius R tending to infinity and a relationship between linear velocity v and angular velocity ω such that v = ωR.
Conveniently, as R tends to infinity, we can move the location of the time discontinuity infinitely far away. If you set up the problem in such a away that you’re dealing with two different light speeds, as R tends to infinity, these speeds converge to c.
I’m sure that if you look up Selleri’s Paradox, you’ll find similar answers with the math worked out.
Any sort of measurement around the circumference, even single point, the fact that one photon circles many times relative to the other means that even without length involved the speed of light would not be judged to be equal if the CW one passes once for every 20-100 passes of the other photon.
Additionally if we take an object like a spaceship moving in an arc to be larger than the infinitesimal distance you describe, then the speed of light would be measured to be different in the 2 directions since your argument is that the speed of light is only C over a distance that is so short we could never hope to measure it anyway and ove longer distances is faster and slower than C!
Sorry but arguing measuring something as fast as light as it moves an infinitesimal distance is a total dodge!
This is precisely the kind of obfuscation SR tries to use to evade sane analysis.
No, if you find that both clocks record that one photon has passed by several times while the other is only done part way the obfuscation of 2 clocks a quarter, 8th or a 16th of the circumference away will not possibly fix anything!
No matter how out of sync they are, they can’t explain that!
I did not ignore it, I did not see it right away then the thread was closed, I replied but it didn’t go though, I actually posted my reply elsewhere and meant to send you a copy but I just checked and I didn’t.
The same Feynmann who explained relativity so beautifully in his lectures? That one?
You’re invoking the guy who thought we should try to explain reality instead of imposing our intuitive but wrong concepts of reality onto the world?
Seriously?
I don’t doubt you should look up to him. But you should certainly take his example more seriously. He didn’t argue that his thought experiments should supercede real world observations, as you are wont to do.
You’ve not shown the ability to grasp most of the obvious criticisms of your ideas so far, and your communication skills leave a lot to be desired. There is of course a possibility you’re right about some things, blind hens finding corns and all that jazz, but the evidence so far is that it’s not very likely and that doing the time consuming work of deciphring your ideas and refuting them won’t be worth the effort.
You’ve demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that this is your response when anyone presents you with actual science. You recoil as if splashed with Holy Water and assume the person is attacking you because they’re one of Special Relativity mafia with ties to the Einstein fortune.
The alternative is that you are hopeless wrong, can’t do math, and are remain blissfully ignorant of the basic concepts of science, logic, and debate. You’ll probably take this as another attack but sadly, it’s just reporting.
For what it’s worth, my interest in participating dropped precipitously after repeated failures in keeping the conservation focused on your specific claims against SR itself. Your thoughts tend to jump around, with new experiments and discussion points showing up out of the blue, rather than staying zeroed-in on the concerns your fellow interlocutors have. If you want to convince someone of something, you have to address their actual concerns rather than send them whiplashing around with new lines of thought. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with fleshing out new ideas in a forum, but I was more interested in getting from you direct defenses of your SR refutation claims, but I couldn’t keep the conversation on track.
Reply to all criticisms that are just personal attacks…
Firstly this is the only reply I will give to such pointless opinions.
Only one of my thought experiments has been busted and I did the busting (and swiftly)!
It was also the only one that anyone else could explain.
None of you can even conceive or hand wave your way to an answer so you just shut down and dispute the source of the logic, not the logic.
If you will not engage in debate of a scientific and logical manner, then your words are meaningless!
BTW I do not recoil from scientific evidence, on the contrary, it is just that it is irrelevant to pointing out a flaw in SR as it stands as one solution (though not my belief) is that SR is correct but incomplete, and an aether drag model give very similar or identical predictions in most circumstances making it moot, and a diversion either way, even if in my favour.
Pasta, as an added note, the reason I did try and find a new thought experiment for you were that otherwise I would have had to recover one I already explained, go over everything again etc… Which is boring. Very boring when I have had to go over it so many times arguing over every point that was wrongly disputed (and SR believers agreed many arguments against my ideas were themselves invalid).
As that would be not as much fun I created a new one, and I had some trouble coming up with one on the fly.
Oh, and General Relativity being disproved made one of my thought experiments insufficient. (acceleration not causing time dilation as occurs with gravity).
BTW I would note that my thought experiment (2 of them) did disprove the existence of time dilation from G-forces, which I since found out has been dis-proven anyway.
These did indicate correctly that there was a logical issue I correctly pointed out that contradict what most all thought they knew and what Wikipedia states in 2 places at minimum that time dilation occurs with acceleration.
Did anyone concede that I had a point with those thought experiments? No.
Did anyone respond when I pointed out they were proven wrong by both logic AND my experimental results? No.
Having read, with no small amount of pain, this entire thread, I would like to make one thing very clear: No one who has been criticizing you has been disputing a source of logic.
But I would say that the arguments that I am not qualified to even consider that I might be able to prove 109 years of science and the most celebrated scientist wrong and so must therefore be crazy, on drugs and incorrect… Is disputing the source of logic IMO. You are welcome to a differing opinion of course.
That’s not my argument at all. You’re taking a misunderstanding and setting it up as a strawman. I’m trying to demonstrate that you’re constantly shifting inertial frames, and in doing so, you run into problems with clock synchronization.
Anyway, back to your photons that lap one another, just think about it like the website would. Going around a disk of circumference C a total of N times is equivalent to going along a straight distance of length C*N once. We still get the time lag.
Physicists have been talking about your paradox for decades. My hazy understanding, which someone more knowledgable than I am can correct (I should note that I am not a physicist) is the following:
– You can demand the speed of light to be c everywhere. In order to do so, you must introduce a time discontinuity which appears as a result of the ambiguity of defining simultaneity along the rim. The location of the time discontinuity depends on how we synchronize our clocks. To put it as simply as I can, your two photons return to the detector at different values of the rotation angle, thus different values of length traveled. Calculating the distance traveled means that you integrate along two separate curves in spacetime, and so you get different distances and times for each photon. Combining these distances with the respective times happens to return c for both photons. Time intervals and length intervals in a rotating frame are not uniquely defined. In mathematical parlance, they are path-dependent. If you’re in a rotating frame, this is one way you can tell that you’re not in an inertial frame.
You seem to object to this idea, and an alternative is:
– You can demand that the speed of light is anisotropic, with a forward speed and a reverse speed. Relativity does not preclude this – it only cares that the two-way speed of light is c. In the limit of infinite radius (linear motion), the one-way speeds converge to c. I’ll clarify that this interpretation suggests that there is a forward one-way speed of light, and a reverse one-way speed of light. However, in your arcing spaceship, you’ve failed to mention how you intend to measure these two speeds of light. You could have the light be reflected off of something back to the spaceship. In this case, you’d be measuring the two-way speed of light, and the differences in the forward and backward components of this travel would cancel out. Or you could have a detector someplace away from the spaceship. You would have to have synchronized the spaceship clock with the detector clock ahead of time, and this is a matter of convention, similar to the time gap case above.
By the way, I don’t understand how referring to an integral – something I learned about it the 10th grade – is “obfuscation”. It must be very convenient to dismiss objections by claiming that they’re just mathematical razzle dazzle.
So you’re OK with respecing authority as long as it suits your position? You’ll take Feynmann’s word for that, but not Einstein’s for c? Which, BTW, Feynmann found no fault with?
Now let’s say we do this on a short racetrack, an elderly person with a zimmer frame is walking one direction and a super car driven by the Stig is going in the other direction, and all you have to measure the time with are grandfather clocks, now you object because the grandfather clocks are from different time zones, never the less we try it and one clock registers the walker, then the other clock records the Stig, then he triggers the next clock, and then again and again and again and again and again and again and again many many times and then the the Stig triggers both clocks and only then walker triggers the second clock and then it is an eternity before we see the walker again but we see the Stig trigger both clocks frequently…
So, is there any way that we could argue that the results look pretty much the same as we would expect if we were at rest??? Or if the Speed of light were C in our frame?
Can clock synchronization be out so far that we can even vaguely pretend that this is a normal result?
Ok, now you could claim we know the round trip is different, so we should not be including that?
But I’m not,** the round trip distance is not required to come to the conclusion that the faster photon is faster**, once it triggers the second detector it then goes around the long way and triggers the first one again, we can just assume that all the time taken for the rest to complete is non-existent/instantaneous and count all that time as being actually a sync issue with the clocks, in other words we are now putting the WHOLE time for the loop to be calculated into a portion of the loop for the faster photon to slow it down.
And STILL it would be faster for one to do the whole loop than the other to do a portion, even many times faster.
No, one laps the other, it is not mutual.
You can’t pretend that one photon triggering both sensors and having 10, 20, 100 or more runs around the loop for every time the slow photon completes just that portion can be explained by clock sync!’
But here is a solution with one clock and hence no clock sync issue…
Let’s say CW one is the slow direction and CCW the fast direction (this means the loop is rotating CW) and that we have 2 detectors some length apart (the less the distance the faster it must rotate and the smaller diameter it must be, but these are mere details) and we will have one detector at 4 O’Clock position and the second at 3 O’Clock position which is where the actual clock (time piece) is.
Signals from the 3 O’Clock sensor reach the clock with zero delay, signals from the 4 O’clock signal come with a tiny delay.
Now since this means that CCW photons will have zero delay as the signal from the 4’O Clock detector will get there at the same time, we are forced to make a tiny adjustment based on how long we reckon light to get from the 4 positioned detector took to get to the clock and add that time on, for the slow CW photon we will need to take off this same small portion of time.
Ok, so now we will look at this from when the slow photon triggers the 3 O’clock sensor. Then the fast photon triggers the 4 O’clock sensor, then the 3 O’Clock sensor, completes the rest and again triggers the 4 O’Clock sensor, followed by the 3 O’clock sensor, then it completes the it again and this happens an arbitrary number of times, then finally the 4 O’clock sensor detects the slow photon.
So is adding a tiny portion of time to the fast signals and taking a tiny bit off the slow photons not just skewing our results but making it appear that one is completing this distance so much faster?
Well first we could ask if we did the reverse, would it change anything? Now the fast photon would appear to move backwards in time and the slow photon would be insignificantly faster.
So this tiny time adjustment is obviously not significant, it shows an extreme asymmetry MUST exist, even with just one clock!
When one photon is recorded as having made the trip many times in the time the other completes it once, this whole analysis is a waste of time, not as some will assert because there is no contradiction here, but rather because there is such a huge asymmetry the only way not to accept it is to be in denial.
WHAT!
Now you say the speed of light can exceed C!
So if you are in a spaceship accelerating and performing a slight curved motion through space you would find that light takes different times in each direction.
I’m sorry but light speed may exceed C and even carry information as long as it suits SR to decide it isn’t the physical speed limit of the universe…
Is such an unbelievable cop out.
What is SR with the speed of light exceeding C?
A joke.
If they exist then they exist, measuring would be secondary, but the previous method would be fine. It may not give a perfectly accurate answer, but it will readily show if the answer is symmetrical or not.
If it is faster than C and slower than C, then it IS, measured or not.
But I have given a way. Since the delay from the 4 O’Clock sensor is equal no matter which photon hits it, any variation of adjustment from that distance at 1C or that distance at almost x2C would be in the range of correcting that issue, one of the values would have to be accurate and any value given in that range would show that he speed in not equal and exceeds C in one direction.
It only took about 1 real minute to read that post but to me, as an observer from a fixed location, it felt as though 1,000 years was passing by.
Thought experiment: If mythoughts was posting from the very edge of a black hole and had a laser strapped to his forehead, and Einstein, with a mirror attached to a treadmill on which he was running at a fixed speed, could also access the internet through the aether, and both were facing each other from opposite ends of a giant revolving disc halfway inside the black hole and halfway outside, could Einstein actually punch mythoughts in the testicles before the reflection of the laser returned to him? What if the disc was spinning at the speed of light?
Could he use entangled particles to hit him in the nads at a distance without even requiring a black hole? Or would he instead use the serendipitous free wifi to send 50 pizzas and a stripper to Max Planck’s house? Discuss.