Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Inertial on 29 Dec 2009 22:42 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:nk7lj55no7trb04mtat26em96tq1ibvapv(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:26 -0600, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > >>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. >> >>This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL. >>That >>is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made; >>instead, >>the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical >>behavior. > > The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens. No .. it used gedankens as examples. It was based on mathematical and logical consequences of two postulates > It was derived without > experiment or equipment. Until it was tested a multitude of times with experiment and equipment and it was found the predictions of the theory were supported by and explained the results >>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at >>> v >>> towards it, as measured in the source frame. >>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the >>> source >>> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v. >> >>Yes, where the closing speeds are measured in the source frame. It is >>ALWAYS >>necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made >>(closing >>speeds are not measurements, they are calculations). > > Yes we know that. It is surprising that you do >> By "frame" I assume you mean INERTIAL frame, with source and >> mirror at rest in their respective frames. I also assume vacuum >> in all light paths (except for source and mirror). I further >> assume some method of measuring the light pulses that does not >> negate these assumptions (in a gedanken I can do that, even >> though it cannot be done in the real world). >> >> >>> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these >>> circumstances, the >>> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured >>> in the >>> mirror frame. >> >>To measure their speeds in the mirror frame requires an observer at rest >>in the >>mirror frame, using clocks and rulers at rest in the mirror frame. These >>clocks >>and rulers are identical to the clocks and rulers at rest in the source >>frame, >>but are NOT congruent to them (that is: when one measures the distance >>between a >>given pair of events [#] using source-frame rulers, one gets a different >>value >>than if one measured the distance between the same events using >>mirror-frame >>rulers; similarly when one measures the time between a given pair of >>events >>using source-frame clocks, one gets a different value than if one measured >>the >>interval between the same events using mirror-frame clocks). > > That is plainly not true. > > Neither the clocks nor the rulers used by the Mirror Observer have to be > related in any way to those used by the GO. They are related in that they use the same standards for calibration > The MO uses ONE rod of arbitrary length and TWO clocks, A and B that are > e-synched by him. That is, tAB = tBA using two light sources that are at > rest > with the clocks. Fine .. Sr's postulates guantee that it will (we are doing an SR analysis of the gedanken here) > The experiment has to show that the MO also finds tAB = tBA using the > pulses, It is a gedanken you know. So when you analyze it in terms of a particular theory (SR in this case), you must assume *everything* that that theory says applies. And the theory says that the times must be the same, because the light travels at c incoming and c reflected relative to the mirrors inertial FoR. > THE SOURCE OF WHICH IS NOT AT REST WITH THE CLOCKS or Einstein is proved > wrong. You can't "prove" something wrong with a gedanken, *unless* the gedanken least to a self-contradiction or a result that is known to be inconsistent with experimental evidence. >> NOTE: in general one must use multiple clocks; in all cases >> the clocks at rest in a given frame are synchronized in that >> frame before being used for any measurements. >> >> [#] an event is an idealized happening at a definite place >> and time. Here are examples: light pulse #357 is emitted >> by the source, light pulse #357 is reflected by the mirror. >> >>The relationships among measurements by source-frame and mirror-frame >>clocks and >>rulers are described by the Lorentz transform between the source and >>mirror >>frames. A direct consequence of these relationships is that ALL light rays >>are >>measured to propagate with speed c, in BOTH the source frame and the >>mirror >>frame. This means the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses ARE >>equal when >>measured in the mirror frame. It also means the incident and reflected >>speeds of >>the pulses ARE equal when measured in the source frame. And it also means >>that >>both of those measured speeds ARE equal to c. > > What do you hope to achieve by reiterating the second postulate over and > over? The second postulate provides the anwser > You have not made one concrete or meaningful statement. Where is the > proof? The second postulate of SR says the speeds of light in the mirror frame is c. Thaat is all the proof one needs for a gedanken being analyzed in terms of SR >> Note: I am not really an "Einstein supporter". Rather, I >> am a physicist. That is, I STUDY physics and use the theories >> which best model the physical phenomena of the world. For this >> sort of question by far the best model is Special Relativity >> (no other theory comes close, except for theories >> indistinguishable from SR). > > You're not a physicst. You might claim to be some kind of specialist > mathematician, nothing more. > > Now, please show me the math that shows the incident and reflected pulses > move > at the same speed wrt the moving mirror IN THE MIRROR FRAME.... Thie mirror does not move in the mirror frame .. it is a stationary mirror in the mirror frame. The laws of reflection say that the outgoing light must reflect at the same speed as the incoming light .. and as the speed of incoming light is c (by the 2nd postulate) the speed of outgoing light must be c .. and that is consistent with the 2nd postulate > or accept and > admit that Einstein's theory is wrong. It is not*. If it is, prove it to be wrong. Proving a theory to be wrong is possible (proving it correct is not). (* meaning that it has been experimentally tested many times and never been refuted and is logically self-consistent)
From: Inertial on 29 Dec 2009 22:51 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:T_OdnURtg7ViCKfW4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > Yes, where the closing speeds are measured in the source frame. It is > ALWAYS necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made > (closing speeds are not measurements, they are calculations). Any measurement of speed requires a calculation. eg. you measure a distance, and measure an elapsed time and calculate the speed by division. Some devices may read a speed, but there is implicit calculation in their calibrations to do so. A closing speed is as much a measurement as any other speed. You can determine it by measuring the change in distance between two objects and the time elapsed between those measurement. Then calculate the speed by division. The area of conflation that is a problem is assuming that a closing speed has the same meaning as speed. Speed is the a measure of how the position of an object changes over time, relative to a frame of reference. Closing speed is a measure of how the difference in positions between two objects, relative to a frame of reference, changes over time. They are very different concepts. It is just that in our relatively slow macro world we experience every day, where Gallilean transforms are usually so close to the correct LT transform that we can't measure the difference, that speed and closing speed seem to be so simply related. Our intuition tells us that the same applies in all situations .. experiment (and nature) tells us otherwise.
From: YBM on 29 Dec 2009 23:24 Henry Wilson DSc a �crit : > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:50:50 GMT, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:26 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. >>> This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL. That >>> is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made; instead, >>> the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical behavior. >> The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens. It was derived without >> experiment or equipment. > > Actually, this experiment is not quite as clear as my original one. > Here is the original one again: Evading again, Ralph? Why don't you try to apply LTs to any of your gedanken instead?
From: Inertial on 30 Dec 2009 02:49 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:fbllj5dfutevnooqmv13tme5gmrnajph3t(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:42:12 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:nk7lj55no7trb04mtat26em96tq1ibvapv(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:26 -0600, Tom Roberts >>> <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. >>>> >>>>This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is >>>>CRUCIAL. >>>>That >>>>is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made; >>>>instead, >>>>the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical >>>>behavior. >>> >>> The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens. >> >>No .. it used gedankens as examples. >> >>It was based on mathematical and logical consequences of two postulates > > I can't see any experiments there... > >>> It was derived without >>> experiment or equipment. >> >>Until it was tested a multitude of times with experiment and equipment and >>it was found the predictions of the theory were supported by and explained >>the results > > in your dreams, girlie.... > > >>>>> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these >>>>> circumstances, the >>>>> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured >>>>> in the >>>>> mirror frame. >>>> >>>>To measure their speeds in the mirror frame requires an observer at rest >>>>in the >>>>mirror frame, using clocks and rulers at rest in the mirror frame. These >>>>clocks >>>>and rulers are identical to the clocks and rulers at rest in the source >>>>frame, >>>>but are NOT congruent to them (that is: when one measures the distance >>>>between a >>>>given pair of events [#] using source-frame rulers, one gets a different >>>>value >>>>than if one measured the distance between the same events using >>>>mirror-frame >>>>rulers; similarly when one measures the time between a given pair of >>>>events >>>>using source-frame clocks, one gets a different value than if one >>>>measured >>>>the >>>>interval between the same events using mirror-frame clocks). >>> >>> That is plainly not true. >>> >>> Neither the clocks nor the rulers used by the Mirror Observer have to be >>> related in any way to those used by the GO. >> >>They are related in that they use the same standards for calibration >> >>> The MO uses ONE rod of arbitrary length and TWO clocks, A and B that are >>> e-synched by him. That is, tAB = tBA using two light sources that are at >>> rest >>> with the clocks. >> >>Fine .. Sr's postulates guantee that it will (we are doing an SR analysis >>of >>the gedanken here) >> >>> The experiment has to show that the MO also finds tAB = tBA using the >>> pulses, >> >>It is a gedanken you know. So when you analyze it in terms of a >>particular >>theory (SR in this case), you must assume *everything* that that theory >>says >>applies. And the theory says that the times must be the same, because the >>light travels at c incoming and c reflected relative to the mirrors >>inertial >>FoR. >> >>> THE SOURCE OF WHICH IS NOT AT REST WITH THE CLOCKS or Einstein is proved >>> wrong. >> >>You can't "prove" something wrong with a gedanken, *unless* the gedanken >>least to a self-contradiction or a result that is known to be inconsistent >>with experimental evidence. > > read my latest description of the experiment. > >>>> NOTE: in general one must use multiple clocks; in all cases >>>> the clocks at rest in a given frame are synchronized in that >>>> frame before being used for any measurements. >>>> >>>> [#] an event is an idealized happening at a definite place >>>> and time. Here are examples: light pulse #357 is emitted >>>> by the source, light pulse #357 is reflected by the mirror. >>>> >>>>The relationships among measurements by source-frame and mirror-frame >>>>clocks and >>>>rulers are described by the Lorentz transform between the source and >>>>mirror >>>>frames. A direct consequence of these relationships is that ALL light >>>>rays >>>>are >>>>measured to propagate with speed c, in BOTH the source frame and the >>>>mirror >>>>frame. This means the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses ARE >>>>equal when >>>>measured in the mirror frame. It also means the incident and reflected >>>>speeds of >>>>the pulses ARE equal when measured in the source frame. And it also >>>>means >>>>that >>>>both of those measured speeds ARE equal to c. >>> >>> What do you hope to achieve by reiterating the second postulate over and >>> over? >> >>The second postulate provides the anwser >> >>> You have not made one concrete or meaningful statement. Where is the >>> proof? >> >>The second postulate of SR says the speeds of light in the mirror frame is >>c. Thaat is all the proof one needs for a gedanken being analyzed in >>terms >>of SR > > how pathetic... > > >>> You're not a physicst. You might claim to be some kind of specialist >>> mathematician, nothing more. >>> >>> Now, please show me the math that shows the incident and reflected >>> pulses >>> move >>> at the same speed wrt the moving mirror IN THE MIRROR FRAME.... >> >>Thie mirror does not move in the mirror frame .. it is a stationary mirror >>in the mirror frame. The laws of reflection say that the outgoing light >>must reflect at the same speed as the incoming light .. and as the speed >>of >>incoming light is c (by the 2nd postulate) the speed of outgoing light >>must >>be c .. and that is consistent with the 2nd postulate > > OK this is not the question. I have since clarified what it is. Where? What is your new revolutionary question that will prove SR is wrong?
From: waldofj on 30 Dec 2009 04:30
> > p xor q => p or q, dumby? Explain us what this is not true. > > Easy as 1,2,3, 4. > > 1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE > 2) (FALSE or FALSE) = FALSE > 3) (TRUE(from 1) => FALSE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE > Happy now, moortel's rent boy? just for the record: 1) (TRUE xor TRUE) = FALSE 2) (TRUE or TRUE) = TRUE 3) (FALSE(from 1) => TRUE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE |