Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Uncle Al on 20 Mar 2005 16:26 Stan Byers wrote: > > Hello Ken Seto, > > Your question reveals another aspect of the problems with Special > Relativity. I had to read it twice to realize the logic and meaning. You > may want to explain the discrepancy in more detail to alert others to the > importance of the question. > > I have posted another article "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" on the > newsgroup, sci.astro.research,...and on the web site > http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm . Comments and red ink > are welcome. > You are an idiot. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 20 Mar 2005 17:00 In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:47:09 GMT <xGi%d.1948$cC6.590(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com>: > SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. > > Questions: > Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is > not an interval of universal time?? And what, precisely, does this mean? If this is the statement 'tau = t', where tau is in K and t is in k, (K and k being coordinate systems moving uniformly with respect to each other), then we get the following requirements. [1] xi = (a00*x - a01*v*t) [*] tau = (a10*v*t - a11*x) where a00, a01, a10, and a11 are functions of v. (We are assuming here linear space. The minus sign is a convention.) [2] Since we're assuming a universal timetick, tau = t, a10 = 0 and a11 = 1 in [1]. [3] If we assume x = c*t and require xi = c*tau = c*t thereby (OWLS speed constancy [!]), then we get c*tau = c*t xi = a00 * (x) - a01 * v * t = a00 * c*t - a01 * v * t [4] If we now assume x = v*t implies xi = 0 (this can be construed as "k and K are moving at velocity v relative to each other"), then we have 0 = (a00*v*t - a01*v*t) and therefore a00 = a01. [5] If we now reprise [3] with [4], we get xi = a00 * (x) - a00 * v * t = a00 * c*t - a00 * v * t and therefore a00 = a01 = c/(c-v). We have our candidate transform: a00 = c/(c-v) a01 = c/(c-v) a10 = 0 a11 = 1 xi = (c/(c-v)) * x - (v*c/(c-v)) * t tau = t [6] If we require invertibility [+], we get some strange results. x = (a00 * xi + a01 * v * t) t = (a10 * v * tau + a11 * x) t = tau x = (c/(c-v) * xi + (v*c/(c-v)) * t) = (c/(c-v) * ((c/(c-v)) * x - (v*c/(c-v)) * t) + (v*c/(c-v)) * t) = c^2/(c-v)^2*x - t*v^2*c/(c-v)^2 Since this is not a tautology of the form x = x or t = t we have a contradiction here; something has gone dreadfully wrong. > Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a > clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal > constant?? The two assumptions: [A] Local OWLS is c. [B] tau = t are fundamentally incompatible from a mathematical standpoint. If one takes [1] and linear space, one ultimately gets xi = (x - vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) tau = (t - vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or the inverse transformation, x = (xi + v*tau) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) t = (tau + v*xi/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is the Lorentz -- and the only really good way to resolve [A]. (Unless one really wants to have an adjustable sliding-stick which depends on the velocity with respect to a central station. Since this will change the measured velocity from the moving station, things get rather messy quickly.) > > Ken Seto > > > [*] One might ask if the v is needed here. Good question. However, [4] will drag it back in anyway. [!] TWLS speed constancy would be easier to measure, but harder to work with mathematically. Using TWLS, one gets a derivation much like Einstein's. [+] the functions axy(v) should be such that axy(v) = axy(-v), since the direction of travel makes no difference. The astute will notice we already have a problem. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Gregory L. Hansen on 20 Mar 2005 18:14 In article <xGi%d.1948$cC6.590(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com>, kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. > >Questions: >Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of >universal time?? >Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a >clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal >constant?? > >Ken Seto How can the invariant speed of light be used to define a universal time? Peak to peak time of an electromagnetic wave? Redshifting. Time interval to pass from the front to the back of a standard ruler? Lengths and times transform according to the Lorentz transforms. -- "Will we be suturing the anus?"
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Mar 2005 19:04 (sigh -- asked and answered many times....) kenseto wrote: > SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant. Yes, and this is in excellent agreement with real observations of the world we inhabit. > Questions: > Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of > universal time?? That is not observed in the world we inhabit. Identical clocks moving over different paths and then reuniting are observed to display different elapsed times. So there is nothing "universal" about the "duration of a clock second". SR predicts the same about the lengths of rulers, but there are no definitive observations of that. There are two simple and obvious ways for a speed to be universal: a) clocks and rulers are also universal b) clocks and rulers are not universal, but changes in their measurements offset each other so the ratio known as speed remains universal for light rays. The world we inhabit has selected b. Live with it. Move on. > Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a > clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal > constant?? Because light speed and clock seconds are DIFFERENT. duh!!! Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com
From: macromitch on 20 Mar 2005 23:23
What if time moves at the speed of light and you can catch up to it by accelerating in space? Catch up to times motion and it goes slower - and space shrinks. If you want to see time just look at how light moves. Time is carrying light around. They share the same motion. If you can see how light moves you can see how time is moving. Light reveals time. Mitch -- Time Moves -- |