Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Inertial on 30 Dec 2009 19:22 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:51fnj55avclaqae5d7behsntfon5h5lupb(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 03:36:53 -0800 (PST), waldofj <waldofj(a)verizon.net> > wrote: > >> >>> The task for relativists is to show how the pulse travel times between >>> the >>> clocks can be the same in the mirror frame yet different in the source >>> frame . >> >>you come close to answering your question with this paragraph. >> >>> In the source frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on the >>> forward >>> trip is d/(c+v). The clocks NUMERICALLY read t0 and t1 as the light >>> passes. >>> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 is d/(c-v) and the >>> clocks >>> record the numbers t1 and t2. >>Although that should be d / gamma rather then just d. > > Yes , I stated that option somewhere else. > >>what makes this work is according to Lorentz the clocks C1 and C2 are >>NOT synchronized in the source frame. Specifically C1 will lag C2 by >>an offset determined by both d and v. > > This is of no consequence. t1, t0 and t2 are just number on the clocks. > > Clocks synched in the source frame show that the forward and reflected > travel > times are unequal in the source frame. > >>So what happens is this: >>As seen from the source frame light takes a time d / gamma / (c + v) >>to go from C1 to C2. This time is less than d / c but because C2 is >>more advanced than C1 it records a later (larger) value for t1 by just >>the right amount such that d / (t1 - t0) = c. >>As seen from the source frame light takes d / gamma / (c - v) to go >>from C2 to C1. This time is greater than d / c but because C1 lags C2 >>it records an earlier (smaller) value for t2 by just the right amount >>such that d / (t2 - t1) = c. >>Don't bother looking for a physical explanation of this effect (clocks >>synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in other frames). There >>is no explanation, this is just what has to be if the principle of the >>constancy of the speed of light is correct. >>Remember this is not proof of anything, it's just a description of >>what SR says about this scenario. >>If you want proof, well: >>http://www.cottonexpressions.com/ccp0-prodshow/YouWantProof.html > > Not important. > This is: > > We have a situation whereby the travel times for a light pulse to go from > points A to B and from B to A are UNEQUAL in the ground frame yet EQUAL in > the > mirror frame. > > This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says that the > laws of > physics are the same in ALL FRAMES. > > P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame must be the > same > in ALL frames whether or not they have different magnitudes in the > different > frames. > > So P2 leads to a violation of P1....and since P2 is a consequence of P1 we > can > only conclude that the whole theory of Einstein is a bloody big joke.. BAHAHA .. you're a joke Henry
From: Inertial on 30 Dec 2009 19:24 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:e9fnj59cjobcoinoekr180l6tte95msjo5(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:00:33 -0800 (PST), glird <glird(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>On Dec 29, 3:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>< This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. 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. >> 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. > >> >> That is so easy that even Einstein showed how. If you really want >>to know how he did it, don't limit your request to his jock straps. > > It is easy. In the mirror frame, the source is moving... the proof is > trivial > from there... > > However you are missiing the point, it is the fact that the times are > UNEQUAL > in the source frame that matters. > > We have a situation whereby the travel times for a light pulse to go from > points A to B and from B to A are UNEQUAL in the ground frame yet EQUAL in > the > mirror frame. > > This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says that the > laws of > physics are the same in ALL FRAMES. > > P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame must be the > same > in ALL frames whether or not they have different magnitudes in the > different > frames. > > So P2 leads to a violation of P1....and since P2 is a consequence of P1 we > can > only conclude that the whole theory of Einstein is a bloody big joke.. BAHAHA .. you really like posting your idiocy multiple times don't you. isn't embarrassing yourself once enough for you? Up there with Androcles who is busy in another thread advertising how he doesn't understand boolean logic (yet again)
From: xxein on 30 Dec 2009 23:03 On Dec 29, 6:51 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. > > > 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). > > Tom Roberts xxein: 'That is', that you refuse to recognise or distinguish other theories. You'd bleed to death over your belief of 'your' physics. I hate to explain to brick walls and the physic hates it also, but the physic is just the physic and someone other than the 'pontificating TR' can certainly understand it better than you. Can you describe the physical mechanism (not a/some physics) of how velocity addition works to our perception and measure of it? NO. The only thing you have is a math formula designed to describe the math of how it eerily conforms only to subjective observation. You have discounted the objectiveness of the physic. Einstein died with a healthy doubt of his own very successful theories. I don't see you relinquishing yours.
From: PD on 31 Dec 2009 13:04 On Dec 30, 10:03 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Dec 29, 6:51 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. > > > 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). > > > Tom Roberts > > xxein: 'That is', that you refuse to recognise or distinguish other > theories. You'd bleed to death over your belief of 'your' physics. I > hate to explain to brick walls and the physic hates it also, but the > physic is just the physic and someone other than the 'pontificating > TR' can certainly understand it better than you. > > Can you describe the physical mechanism (not a/some physics) of how > velocity addition works to our perception and measure of it? NO. The > only thing you have is a math formula designed to describe the math of > how it eerily conforms only to subjective observation. Objective observation, where the objectivity is determined by the common result obtained by independent investigators using complementary methods. The second you start saying that observation is suspect and that objective truth can be determined without reference or verification from observation, you have stopped doing science. > You have > discounted the objectiveness of the physic. > > Einstein died with a healthy doubt of his own very successful > theories. I don't see you relinquishing yours.
From: glird on 31 Dec 2009 17:14
On Dec 30, 3:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >On Dec 29, 3:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > Henry: This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. 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. 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. > glird: That is so easy that even Einstein showed how. If you really want to know how he did it, don't limit your request to his jock straps. > Henry: It is easy. In the mirror frame, the source is moving... the proof is trivial from there... However you are missing the point, it is the fact that the times are UNEQUAL in the source frame that matters. We have a situation whereby the travel times for a light pulse to go from points A to B and from B to A are UNEQUAL in the ground frame yet EQUAL in the mirror frame. > You -- and androcles -- completely missed Einstein's point, which is that DESPITE the fact that a pulse will go from A to B of the moving system at c-v AS PLOTTED BY the source frame, etc, it will go at c AS PLOTTED BY THE MOVING SYSTEM itself. Henry: This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says that the laws of physics are the same in ALL FRAMES. > Since the light pulse DOES travel at c AS MEASURED *IN* EACH GIVEN SYSTEM, that obeys his first postulate. Henry: P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame must be the same in ALL frames whether or not they have different magnitudes in the different frames. They are. The question is Why are they? The answer is: Because Einstein's 3rd postulate is that clocks of all systems must MEASURE the speed of light as identical in their own system REGARDLESS of their speeds relative to "the stationary system". Henry: So P2 leads to a violation of P1....and since P2 is a consequence of P1 we can only conclude that the whole theory of Einstein is a bloody big joke. > What does "P1" and "P2" mean to you? To me, P1 denoted Einstein's submitted paper, on June 30, 1905. P2 denotes his published paper, in late September, 1905. There is a monumental difference between P1 and extensively revised P2. The "joke" is that neither you nor any mathematician or physicist ever discovered the five or seven or ten fatal errors in Einstein's mathematics and/or his "logic". glird |