The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

#####################

From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time-dilation-002-mod.svg

This constancy of the speed of light means that, counter to intuition, the speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear greater by moving towards or away from the light source.

Consider then, a simple vertical clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing. The separation of the mirrors is L and the clock ticks once each time the light pulse hits mirror A.

In the frame in which the clock is at rest (see left part of the diagram), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light:

From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v relative to the resting frame of the clock (right part of diagram), the light pulse is seen as tracing out a longer, angled path. Keeping the speed of light constant for all inertial observers requires a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective

#####################

Correct?

[Jane]

On Tue, 09 May 2023 23:40:07 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> #####################
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time-
dilation-002-mod.svg

>

> Consider then, a simple vertical clock consisting of two mirrors A and
> B, between which a light pulse is bouncing. The separation of the
> mirrors is L and the clock ticks once each time the light pulse hits
> mirror A.
>
> In the frame in which the clock is at rest (see left part of the
> diagram), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period
> of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light:
>
> From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed
> v relative to the resting frame of the clock (right part of diagram),
> the light pulse is seen as tracing out a longer, angled path. Keeping
> the speed of light constant for all inertial observers requires a
> lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's
> perspective
>
> #####################
>
> Correct?

You are correct in that you have provided the classical view. That view
would be correct if an aether existed but since it does not, it is
NOT correct. This is a common mistake that is still taught and it is also
the reason why gamma appears throughout ether theories including SR.

The reason it is wrong becomes obvious if the path of each element of the
beam is plotted in the moving frame. The beam as a whole does NOT become
diagonal even though the paths of its infinitesimal elements are
diagonal.. .but they are just lines on a graph and do not constitute
light.






--
-- lover of truth

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course. That one goes back to Einstein himself.
It was one of his gedanken epriments about ideal clocks,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Of course, the clocks of the real world didn't
keep up ingenious ideals of your idiot guru and
behave differently - as anyone can check in
GPS.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Aether in which frame? Both frames?

> The reason it is wrong becomes obvious if the path of each element of the
> beam is plotted in the moving frame. The beam as a whole does NOT become
> diagonal even though the paths of its infinitesimal elements are
> diagonal.. .but they are just lines on a graph and do not constitute
> light.
>
>

You may be right but you will not convince anyone here, I think. If the light is broken up into
short light pulses such as - - - - then you may have a point. The distance between the sets of
photons making up the light pulse may increase, but this is not light itself.

Can you think of a better proof?

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

If the light source at the bottom is considered a moving light source, and emitting light in all directions, I would think it
would cause a set of wavefront to be formed. Now the source of the first wavefront is the initial position of the light source,
that is the centre of the wavefront, which would mean the stationary observer would see light moving at c in all directions from
this position, covering equal distances.

If we assume the centre of emission is 'moving' , even then, we would have to see spherical wave fronts.

That seems to be the case?

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Could you perhaps elaborate this once, and come up with suggestions on this light clock.

By the way, it occurred to me : a thought experiment is just words. There is nothing to say whatever thoughts were correct.

[J. J. Lodder]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

No. This idealised clock is infinitely long in the x-direction,
and it has plane waves bouncing.
Try to see that it is a highly idealised one,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

> By the way, it occurred to me : a thought experiment is just words.
> There is nothing to say whatever thoughts were correct.

Thought experiments test the consistency of a theory,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Nope, with its zillions of gedankens The Shit
is obviously inconsistent.
Thought experiments are teaching idiots like
you that ideal/perfect/proper/correct/you_name_it
is - what some insane guru has invented.

[carl eto]

It is not physically possible to measure the velocity of light since it is to fast. therefore the velocity of light is infinite.

[Jane]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 04:52:59 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:15 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 May 2023 23:40:07 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > #####################
>> >

>> > #####################
>> >
>> > Correct?
>> You are correct in that you have provided the classical view. That view
>> would be correct if an aether existed but since it does not, it is NOT
>> correct. This is a common mistake that is still taught and it is also
>> the reason why gamma appears throughout ether theories including SR.
>>
>>
> Aether in which frame? Both frames?
>
>> The reason it is wrong becomes obvious if the path of each element of
>> the beam is plotted in the moving frame. The beam as a whole does NOT
>> become diagonal even though the paths of its infinitesimal elements are
>> diagonal.. .but they are just lines on a graph and do not constitute
>> light.
>>
>>
> You may be right but you will not convince anyone here, I think.

It is not my fault that they are devoid of intelligence. I see no
advantage in convincing an imbecile about anything.

> If the
> light is broken up into short light pulses such as - - - - then you
> may have a point. The distance between the sets of photons making up
> the light pulse may increase, but this is not light itself.
>
> Can you think of a better proof?

The proof is that if the positions of points in a vertical light beam are
plotted against time in any horizontally moving frame, it becomes obvious
that the only light beam present remains vertical in all such frames.
There are NO 'diagonal light beams' moving at c.

Even girlie Brian Cox made the terrible mistake of claiming the beam
leans over diagonally in his TV documentary about relativity. It shows
how deeply the Einstein indoctrination process has penetrated.
-
>> -- lover of truth

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Brian Cox that he seems to have found the secret of youth.

Here is the link:

https://www.facebook.com/DoctorWho/videos/is-time-travel-actually-possible-the-science-of-doctor-who/3489949364569681/

Clearly this is all demonstrated in a Newtonian universe, with addition of velocities, but that is a minor detail.
No one knows if the movement of the light bulb is constant in both frames, it can be manually adjusted
to be anything. Thought experiments translated to illusionist tricks. This was Einstein's own thought experiment. Funnily, in my thought experiment, the whole thing results in contradictions inconsistencies.

Here is another question: (thanks to Run Cao Ze) .

If there is a stationary source that emits a beam of light at the same angle as the angled, moving beam, starting at the same position, which one will be measured as travelling faster in the frame of the stationary observer?

---------------------------------|
---------------------------|
--------------------|
-------------|
----|
S.====================

Remember that the moving light source has the added boost of being carried along by the light clock.

Appreciate you helping me out here.

Do you believe we have insights into this thing that Brian Cox and Albert Einstein did not?

[Dono.]

kookfight

[Tom Roberts]

Not really. They DEMONSTRATE certain aspects of the theory used to
construct the gedanken experiment. But they are certainly powerless to
show that the theory applies accurately in the world we inhabit.

Tom Roberts

[Sylvia Else]

On 11-May-23 7:12 am, carl eto wrote:
> It is not physically possible to measure the velocity of light since it is to fast. therefore the velocity of light is infinite.

So you cannot think of a way of doing it.

But a hundred and seventy years ago, Armand Fizeau thought of a way.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau%27s_measurement_of_the_speed_of_light_in_air>

Guess he was brighter than you.

Sylvia.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Well said, thank you.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:12:49 AM UTC+5, carl eto wrote:
> It is not physically possible to measure the velocity of light since it is to fast. therefore the velocity of light is infinite.

There have been experiments that have measured the speed of light, correct?

[J. J. Lodder]

Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 3:05 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> By the way, it occurred to me : a thought experiment is just words.
> >> There is nothing to say whatever thoughts were correct.
> >
> > Thought experiments test the consistency of a theory,
>
> Not really. They DEMONSTRATE certain aspects of the theory used to
> construct the gedanken experiment.

Well yes, that too, for teaching the kiddies,

Jan

[Jane]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 18:38:00 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 4:24:40 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 May 2023 04:52:59 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:15 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 09 May 2023 23:40:07 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > #####################
>> >> >
>> >> > #####################
>> >> >
>> >> > Correct?
>> >> You are correct in that you have provided the classical view. That
>> >> view would be correct if an aether existed but since it does not, it
>> >> is NOT correct. This is a common mistake that is still taught and it
>> >> is also the reason why gamma appears throughout ether theories
>> >> including SR.

Those two assumed light moved at c along the diagonals when it clearly
moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2)
It takes the same time to go up and down in both frames.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

The way the light clock is described violates the second postulate. That just means the light clock does not work as described, however, Special Relativity works, as the story goes.

[Jane]

SR has never 'worked'. It has never been used or even needed here on
Earth. It still exists as an amusement for silly old men who think they
might be able to use it to build a time machine and live forever..

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

General Relativity permits warp drives which is faster than a light beam.
Does that work?

[Jane]

Light from a car's headlights moves faster that light from the light pole.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/11/23 5:45 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> There have been experiments that have measured the speed of light,
> correct?

Today this is simple: our students routinely measure the speed of light
in our undergraduate physics lab. They typically achieve 3 significant
digits, so are unable to observe the effect of the air.

In the measurements leading up to the redefinition of the meter in 1983,
metrology labs around the world measured the vacuum speed of light to
within ~ 0.1 meter/second.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

And in the measurements preceding the redefinition
of the second in 1960 - constant speed of light was
a self denying logical impossibility.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 11:40:09 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> #####################
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#/media/File:Time-dilation-002-mod.svg
>
> This constancy of the speed of light means that, counter to intuition, the speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear greater by moving towards or away from the light source.
>
> Consider then, a simple vertical clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing. The separation of the mirrors is L and the clock ticks once each time the light pulse hits mirror A.
>
> In the frame in which the clock is at rest (see left part of the diagram), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light:
>
> From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v relative to the resting frame of the clock (right part of diagram), the light pulse is seen as tracing out a longer, angled path. Keeping the speed of light constant for all inertial observers requires a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective
>
> #####################
>
> Correct?

Light does not have a still clock.
Nothing does. BHs don't manifest.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/10/23 6:22 PM, Jane wrote:
> The proof is that if the positions of points in a vertical light beam
> are plotted against time in any horizontally moving frame, it becomes
> obvious that the only light beam present remains vertical in all such
> frames. There are NO 'diagonal light beams' moving at c.

NONSENSE! Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is no "proof"
of anything except that you are ignorant and delusional.

Use the usual (x,y,z,t) coordinates in inertial frame S, and
(x',y',z',t') in inertial frame S' moving with velocity v in the +x
direction relative to the S; z and z' are vertical. Vacuum.

Consider a light pulse that leaves the origin
(x,y,z,t) = (0,0,0,0)
and reaches a point vertically a distance L above the origin in S
(x,y,z,t) = (0,0,L,L/c)

[The speed of this pulse relative to S is clearly c.]

In S', the first point is
(x',y',z',t') = (0,0,0,0)
and the second point is
(x',y',z',t') = (g(0-v*L/c),0,L,g(L/c-0))
here g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
The second point in S' is not x'=0, so this light pulse CLEARLY moved
diagonally relative to S'.

[Calculate the speed of this pulse relative to S' and
one obtains c, the same as its speed relative to S.]

What if instead of the Lorentz transform we used the Galilean transform?
In S' the first point is
(x',y',z',t') = (0,0,0,0)
and the second point is
(x',y',z',t') = (0-v*L/c,0,L,L/c)
The second point in S' is not x'=0, so this light pulse CLEARLY moved
diagonally relative to S'. Here the only difference from the Lorentz
transform is the absence of g in the coordinates of the second point.

Your claim is false in Newtonian mechanics and in relativistic
mechanics, AND THIS OUGHT TO BE OBVIOUS. This has nothing whatsoever to
do with "Einstein indoctrination" (whatever that is), it is just basic
physics.

You really need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

[Jane]

No, Tom , like all the other 'experts' you have gotten it all wrong.
A vertical light beam when plotted in the frame of a horizontally moving
observer remains the same vertical beam but simply moving sideways.
Consecutively emitted elements remain vertically aligned. It is not hard
to show that and if you cannot perform such a trivial exercise in frame
transformation, you are a lost cause.

Your mistake is that you consider a light 'pulse' as being representative
of a continuous beam when what you have analysed is just the diagonal
path of an INFINITESIMAL ELEMENT of a 'very short light beam'. Your
diagonal movement is nothing but a line on a graph representing the
unique path of one such element.
Every element of the beam follows a different diagonal and nothing
resembling a full light beam moves along any particular diagonal. That
should be obvious.
What is more, the speed of each infinitesimally element (which does not
constitute light or anything else) is obviously sqrt(c^2+v^2) in the
moving frame.
If you want more clarification, let the moving observer project a laser
beam at arctan(v/c). You will see there is no similarity between that and
the infinitesimal thing you have analysed.

PS. when the penny has finally dropped, would you please ask Brian Cox to
correct his TV documentary.




> Tom Roberts

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

It is very simple. Light cannot travel >2L in the time it takes to travel L for a light clock in the rest frame.
No one in the rest frame can measure light travel between two points at a velocity greater than c.

2L/c = c

The light clock is science fiction.

However, one can say this: If we take a light clock in the rest frame and a light clock in the moving frame, and we attempt to translate the results from the moving frame to another, once again using the constant speed of light in both frames as a condition, a condition I think is science fiction, then of course we are back to the old game of having to use the Lorentz invariance.

The second postulate needs to be proven to be incorrect by experiment, which will never happen. Why?

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

..
> -- lover of truth

This is one way of looking at it. In effect the movement of the clock creates empty space between photons out of nothing. Creationex-nihilo, and that also asymmetrically. Only you and I understand this, and maybe Henry Wilson.

All we should do is cogently publish our peer reviewed books and be done with it.

[J. J. Lodder]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
[-]

> It is very simple. Light cannot travel >2L in the time it takes to travel
> L for a light clock in the rest frame. No one in the rest frame can
> measure light travel between two points at a velocity greater than c.
>
> 2L/c = c
>
> The light clock is science fiction.

Au contraire, -all- practical precision clocks are light clocks.
Instead of counting bounces one measures the resonant frequency
of the light between the mirrors.

For practical reasons (dimensins of the cavity are not stable enough)
one locks this resonance to an atomic transition
to keep the dimensions of the cavity
(and hence the frequency of the light clock) constant.

And yes, relativistic Doppler shift applies (as it should)
if you look at it when it moves with respect to you.
(like a GPS sat for example)

Jan

[Python]

Definition of time units plays no role in Relativity. Live with it
Maciej.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

[Python]

Le 13/05/2023 à 17:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 14:51:57 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Raving lunatic, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 18:39:25 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/23 5:45 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> There have been experiments that have measured the speed of light,
>>>>> correct?
>>>> Today this is simple: our students routinely measure the speed of light
>>>> in our undergraduate physics lab. They typically achieve 3 significant
>>>> digits, so are unable to observe the effect of the air.
>>>>
>>>> In the measurements leading up to the redefinition of the meter in 1983,
>>>> metrology labs around the world measured the vacuum speed of light to
>>>> within ~ 0.1 meter/second.
>>>
>>> And in the measurements preceding the redefinition
>>> of the second in 1960 - constant speed of light was
>>> a self denying logical impossibility.
>> Definition of time units plays no role in Relativity. Live with it
>> Maciej.
>
>
> Oh

Yes.

> ... have you already read

> definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

Oh dear, this is bad... You're still fighting with your miscomprehension
of maths and French ! You're a dork Maciej (excuse my French) !

[Volney]

And all of Maciej's raving and spitting *still* won't change the fact
that the definition of time units is irrelevant to Einstein's
relativity. Einstein *never* used time units other than to express time
dilation as ratios (seconds per second).

[Maciej Wozniak]

An asserion is not an argument, stupid Mike.
BTW, do you still believe that adjusting clocks
to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.

Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

If light oscillates in free space it does also in time.

[Chad Stavropoulos]

Volney wrote:

> And all of Maciej's raving and spitting *still* won't change the fact
> that the definition of time units is irrelevant to Einstein's
> relativity. Einstein *never* used time units other than to express time
> dilation as ratios (seconds per second).

capitalist america is fucked up. You guys should leave and emigrate to
other country. Again.

Mia Farrow Confesses: ‘Satanic Hollywood Elites Rape and Eat Children’
https://r%75%6dble.com/embed/v2l02v4/

finally the putina starts bombing the cocaine zelenske petrol tanks and
ammo depots in fucking nazi ukraine.

HOLY MOTHER - Russian Strike on Khmelnitsky Ammo Depot Creates Largest
Blast of the War
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/inLxvpqNkfIS

Another Closeup Angle of Insane Ukrainian Ammo Depot Blast
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/1Tu3DagDXS5S

[Jane]

The clock doesn't even move. It is simply observed in the moving frame. If
it is plotted correctly all the beam elements remain vertically aligned as
they obviously must. The claim that the beam becomes diagonal epitomizes
the inferiority of the relavivist mentality.

> Creationex-nihilo,
> and that also asymmetrically. Only you and I understand this, and maybe
> Henry Wilson.

That name is prominent in my uncle's records. I will go through them and
see.

> All we should do is cogently publish our peer reviewed books and be done
> with it.

I am writing a whole thesis on the history of the introduction of SR.
It contains some sensational discoveries...including a completely new
explanation of the cosmic redshift.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

> -- lover of truthThe purpose of the experiment is to show that if an observer is moving relative to another, they do not experience two events as simultaneously, if one experiences to events that are simultaneous to him, the other does not. The experiment illustrates the point.

This is the same as saying that M' moves to the right, stops in his tracks and views the flashes, one before the other.

The phenomenon is then extended to all events, all hapennings, as a general rule. There are several additional assumptions that need to be stated to make the case stronger. I have asked for the assumptions in another thread.

(a) M' does not know he is moving relative to the tracks or the observer M, there are no side windows in the train.

(b) M' cannot tell the distance to the point on the tracks where the lightning has struck by Doppler or prior measurement or
any other means.

(c) There is a preferred frame of reference in which the origin of the lightning strikes remains at a distance x from M and an unspecified distance x1 from M'.

Of course, I would say, if M' does not know he is moving, he will assume that one lightning strike took place before the other.

I cannot say or will not say how this applies to reality, but the thought experiment would have been well served by adding these
qualifications.

How is this different from Poincare's description?

####
However, Lorentz gave no physical explanation of this effect. This was done by Henri Poincaré who already emphasized in 1898 the conventional nature of simultaneity and who argued that it is convenient to postulate the constancy of the speed of light in all directions. However, this paper does not contain any discussion of Lorentz's theory or the possible difference in defining simultaneity for observers in different states of motion.[3][4] This was done in 1900, when Poincaré derived local time by assuming that the speed of light is invariant within the aether. Due to the "principle of relative motion", moving observers within the aether also assume that they are at rest and that the speed of light is constant in all directions (only to first order in v/c). Therefore, if they synchronize their clocks by using light signals, they will only consider the transit time for the signals, but not their motion in respect to the aether. So the moving clocks are not synchronous and do not indicate the "true" time. Poincaré calculated that this synchronization error corresponds to Lorentz's local time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
#####

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Wilson had a nice graphic in BASIC called light exe or something.

> > All we should do is cogently publish our peer reviewed books and be done
> > with it.
> I am writing a whole thesis on the history of the introduction of SR.
> It contains some sensational discoveries...including a completely new
> explanation of the cosmic redshift.
> --
> -- lover of truth

Maybe it us time to take out a piece of paper and do a 1915 type simulation of this.

If you are writing anything please get it mercilessly peer reviewed at least for grammar.
Your discoveries will have to be validated, agree? Or they are not.

[Tom Roberts]

> A vertical light beam when plotted in the frame of a horizontally
> moving observer remains the same vertical beam but simply moving
> sideways.

This is not true. The beam is moving diagonally in that frame (my S').

> Consecutively emitted elements remain vertically aligned.

Finally you have said something that is true. To see this, let's extend
my discussion quoted above.

In S, consider a light beam that leaves the spatial origin moving
vertically (along z) for all t>0. The light pulse considered above is
the start of the beam. At any time t=T, with T>0, the beam extends up to
z=cT, and all portions of the beam are located at
x=0, y=0, 0<z<cT, t=T.

In S', at any time t'=gT, with T>0, the beam extends from z'=0 up to
z'=cT with all portions of the beam located at:
x'=g(0-v*T), y'=0, 0<z'<cT, t'=gT [#]
That is, the leading edge of the beam clearly traces a diagonal line in
the x',z' plane, and the entire beam is vertically aligned (along z').

[#] This is just the Lorentz transform of the extent of
of the beam in S.

Similarly, every infinitesimal region of the beam is moving diagonally
in S'. In particular, at time t=T the infinitesimal region emitted at
t=T0 (0<T0<T) is located at
x'=-gvT, y'=0, z'=c(T-T0), t'=gT (valid only for T>T0)
So it is clear that the entire beam is moving diagonally in S'.

Summary: In S', at any given value of t' (>0), all portions of the beam
have the same value of x', which is moving in the -x' direction with
speed v; the beam's extent along z' is increasing, and the entire beam
is moving diagonally in the x',z' plane.

Tom Roberts

[Chad Stavropoulos]

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/12/23 7:02 PM, Jane wrote:
>> A vertical light beam when plotted in the frame of a horizontally
>> moving observer remains the same vertical beam but simply moving
>> sideways.
>
> This is not true. The beam is moving diagonally in that frame (my S').
>
>> Consecutively emitted elements remain vertically aligned.
>
> Finally you have said something that is true. To see this, let's extend
> my discussion quoted above.

I come to think that if the *_future_exists_*, it must have been
*_existent_in_the_past_*. You can't see the past, since we always are
*_in_the_present_*. But the future if it exists, as it does, it must have
*_been_existent_in_the_past_*.

[whodat]

No wonder the Russians are so far behind...Their future is their past.

[Chad Stavropoulos]

whodat wrote:

>>>> Consecutively emitted elements remain vertically aligned.
>>>
>>> Finally you have said something that is true. To see this, let's
>>> extend my discussion quoted above.
>>
>> I come to think that if the *_future_exists_*, it must have been
>> *_existent_in_the_past_*. You can't see the past, since we always are
>> *_in_the_present_*. But the future if it exists, as it does, it must
>> have *_been_existent_in_the_past_*.
>

> No wonder the Russians a̶r̶e̶ s̶o̶ f̶a̶r̶ b̶e̶h̶i̶n̶d̶...Their future is their past.

your mother's liver, seen through her vagina.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Assume that the light clock has a light bulb at the bottom, emitting light in a spherical wavefront.
In that case, light will reach equal distances from the light source in time t, since the speed of light is constant.
This is in the rest frame. However, no measurement in the rest frame will record light travelling a greater distance
than ct in any direction.

If you want to assume that what happens in the light clock is that light goes up and down in the inertial frame of reference of the light clock, and you want to translate those movements back into your frame of rest, you are free to do so using any formula or numerical
method in existence.

Saying that the ray of light travels a greater distance in one direction than the in the same time violates the second postulate, and everyone should see that.

[Tom Roberts]

> [... irrelevant diversion]

In S at time t=T the leading edge of the light beam has moved from
(x,y,z,t)=(0,0,0,0) to (x,y,z,t)=(0,0,cT,T); (distance traveled in
S)/(time duration in S) = c.

In S' at time t'=gT the same leading edge has moved from
(x',y',z',t')=(0,0,0,0) to (x',y',z',t')=(-gvT,0,cT,gT); (distance
traveled in S')/(time duration in S') = c. So in S' it traveled a longer
distance in a longer time; the (vacuum) speed of light is the same
value as in S: c.

This does NOT violate Einstein's second postulate (as you wrongly
fantasize), and everyone should see that.

Tom Roberts

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

An observer in S sees the edge of the leading edge of a stationary clock traveling L in time t.

When the clock is moving, how far does S see the edge of the beam of light moving? In time t
it has moved a distance, as measured in S, of L or a distance greater than L?

>
> In S' at time t'=gT the same leading edge has moved from
> (x',y',z',t')=(0,0,0,0) to (x',y',z',t')=(-gvT,0,cT,gT); (distance
> traveled in S')/(time duration in S') = c. So in S' it traveled a longer
> distance in a longer time; the (vacuum) speed of light is the same
> value as in S: c.
>

Fictions about what happens inside the moving clock prove nothing here.
In S' it has traveled a longer distance relative to what? I thought in S' the light is simply going up and down.

[Tom Roberts]

> [...]

Everything you wrote is garbled and appears to be unrelated to the
scenario above (e.g. you ask about "clocks", but there are no clocks in
this scenario; also there is no "up and down") -- you REALLY need to
read more carefully. I described this carefully and precisely, and your
questions show that you did not actually read and understand what I
wrote. There's no point in continuing until YOU learn to read carefully
and accurately, and reflect that in your questions and writing.

Tom Roberts

[J. J. Lodder]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

Then you should take a spherical mirror,
and you have a spherical light clock.
(already discussed by Ehrenfest, shortly after 1905)

Excercise: describe what happens when it moves.
Will you still see all the light passing through the centre,
periodically?

Jan

[RichD]

On May 15, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Then you should take a spherical mirror,
> and you have a spherical light clock.
>

> Excercise: describe what happens when it moves.
> Will you still see all the light passing through the centre,
> periodically?

https://www.amazon.com/OMIRO-Folding-Compact-Mirror-Magnification/dp/B0799JCCFF/ref=asc_df_B0799JCCFF/

She holds the mirror at eye level, at a few inches distance,
with hinge vertical, bent 90*. She winks her right eye.
What does she see?

What if this mirror is used in Einstein's mirror light clock?

--
Rich

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Is the answer to that question to take a spherical mirror?

For any non moving light source, light will travel equal distances in a specific time.

If the light source such as a light bulb is moving, what will the stationary observer see? Will he see light travel greater distances in one direction in a specific time.

I would be happy to see an answer.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Sorry, re-reading

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Some questions:

>>So in S' it traveled a longer
> > distance in a longer time;

In S' the leading edge of the light travels a distance 2L. Why should anything happening inside S' change?
As viewed from the stationary frame, at time T, the light is seen to travel a distance ct from the light source.
This cannot change. The entire experiment is framed in terms of what the stationary observer sees, but what does he
see? Whatever he sees, he cannot see light move a greater distance than cT in a time T.

[Jane]

No. I don't intend even trying to publish this as a formal scientific
paper. Nobody would touch it because what it reveals will destroy
thousands of reputations and millions of publications. It also has a lot
of sensational stuff that would be plagiarized by useless academics like
some who post here. It will be for sale in Ebook of PDF format,
copyrighted.. Some of it has already been checked for grammar but I
think I can handle that...being a science journalist for years.

[Jane]

I said the beam remains vertical in the moving frame.

>> Consecutively emitted elements remain vertically aligned.
>
> Finally you have said something that is true. To see this, let's extend
> my discussion quoted above.

Finally you have understood some basic physics.

> In S, consider a light beam that leaves the spatial origin moving
> vertically (along z) for all t>0. The light pulse considered above is
> the start of the beam. At any time t=T, with T>0, the beam extends up to
> z=cT, and all portions of the beam are located at
> x=0, y=0, 0<z<cT, t=T.
>
> In S', at any time t'=gT, with T>0, the beam extends from z'=0 up to
> z'=cT with all portions of the beam located at:
> x'=g(0-v*T), y'=0, 0<z'<cT, t'=gT [#]
> That is, the leading edge of the beam clearly traces a diagonal line in
> the x',z' plane, and the entire beam is vertically aligned (along z').
>
> [#] This is just the Lorentz transform of the extent of of the beam
> in S.

That is the error.

> Similarly, every infinitesimal region of the beam is moving diagonally
> in S'. In particular, at time t=T the infinitesimal region emitted at
> t=T0 (0<T0<T) is located at
> x'=-gvT, y'=0, z'=c(T-T0), t'=gT (valid only for T>T0)
> So it is clear that the entire beam is moving diagonally in S'.

Silly Tom. Every infinitesimal element of the beam is moving diagonally.
Clearly, the paths of those elements represent just the loci of
infinitesimal points....an infinite number of unique imaginary lines on a
graph. ...and you are so naive you claim they are light... and therefore
must move at c!! How blatantly stupid! Those lines are obviously 'nothing'
and the infinitesimal elements are not light. They move at sqrt(c^2+v^2)
in the moving frame and the beam takes exactly the same time to go up and
down in all frames.

> Summary: In S', at any given value of t' (>0), all portions of the beam
> have the same value of x', which is moving in the -x' direction with
> speed v; the beam's extent along z' is increasing, and the entire beam
> is moving diagonally in the x',z' plane.

Tom, to emphasize the error in your claims, let the moving observer shine
a real laser beam along one of the diagonal paths. Do you see that it is
different from the main beam? I hope so....Its 'axis' is not vertical and
it clearly does not get to the top in the same time as the diagonally
moving points. Obviously its speed is not the same as that of the
infinitesimal points.

Note, if an Ether really existed, the beam of a light clock would have to
be angled diagonally at arctan(v/c) in order to return to the source. It
would then genuinely take longer than if v = 0. The Lorentz factor would
then apply.

However the fact that TWLS is always very constant proves that no ether
exists...and therefore LET and SR are both nothing but SciFi.


> Tom Roberts

[Jane]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 18:15:03 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


>>
>> Everything you wrote is garbled and appears to be unrelated to the
>> scenario above (e.g. you ask about "clocks", but there are no clocks in
>> this scenario; also there is no "up and down") -- you REALLY need to
>> read more carefully. I described this carefully and precisely, and your
>> questions show that you did not actually read and understand what I
>> wrote. There's no point in continuing until YOU learn to read carefully
>> and accurately, and reflect that in your questions and writing.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Sorry, re-reading

Make sure you read my latest esponse to Tommy before you post a reply.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

There have been some papers published in peer- reviewed publications that do criticize aspects of Special Relativity.
The widespread destruction you mentioned does not exist, so it is worth a try.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305807371_Criticism_of_the_Foundations_of_the_Relativity_Theory

https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Special_relativity

I would be willing to check the document and add my comments. I look forward to your publications, I am not afraid
of looking at ideas I consider to be incorrect, after all I have been looking at Special Relativity for some time now.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

If you consider the light clock to consist of light pulses (not sure how to handle the interactions with the mirror and related delays)
but this is an useful idea.

> > In S, consider a light beam that leaves the spatial origin moving
> > vertically (along z) for all t>0. The light pulse considered above is
> > the start of the beam. At any time t=T, with T>0, the beam extends up to
> > z=cT, and all portions of the beam are located at
> > x=0, y=0, 0<z<cT, t=T.
> >
> > In S', at any time t'=gT, with T>0, the beam extends from z'=0 up to
> > z'=cT with all portions of the beam located at:
> > x'=g(0-v*T), y'=0, 0<z'<cT, t'=gT [#]
> > That is, the leading edge of the beam clearly traces a diagonal line in
> > the x',z' plane, and the entire beam is vertically aligned (along z').
> >
> > [#] This is just the Lorentz transform of the extent of of the beam
> > in S.
> That is the error.

What is this 'trace?' I am a little more free to ask questions from Jane _E since he seems to see things from the same point of view. Questions asked from other persons, many times, in my view, result in a cloud of mathematics that do no answer the question direclty.

> > Similarly, every infinitesimal region of the beam is moving diagonally
> > in S'. In particular, at time t=T the infinitesimal region emitted at
> > t=T0 (0<T0<T) is located at
> > x'=-gvT, y'=0, z'=c(T-T0), t'=gT (valid only for T>T0)
> > So it is clear that the entire beam is moving diagonally in S'.

If the beam is made up of photons, and not continuous, or light pulses which definitely consist of groups of photons,
then it is clear that the projected movement of the apparatus results in increased spacing between light pulses, in that
arrangement, which may not represent reality.

> Silly Tom. Every infinitesimal element of the beam is moving diagonally.
> Clearly, the paths of those elements represent just the loci of
> infinitesimal points....an infinite number of unique imaginary lines on a
> graph. ...and you are so naive you claim they are light... and therefore
> must move at c!!

A trace is not light. I find it useful to think of the light clock filled with smoke. The stationary observer will see the light reflect off the smoke, and ignoring viewing delays, they will see a moving set of pulses, in case of the light pulse clock, a series of dotted lighted lines or points. With reference to the light clock, these lines are not moving at all even as seen by a stationary observer. This is all conjecture, though.

__________
|
|
|__________

>How blatantly stupid! Those lines are obviously 'nothing'
> and the infinitesimal elements are not light. They move at sqrt(c^2+v^2)
> in the moving frame and the beam takes exactly the same time to go up and
> down in all frames.
> > Summary: In S', at any given value of t' (>0), all portions of the beam
> > have the same value of x', which is moving in the -x' direction with
> > speed v; the beam's extent along z' is increasing, and the entire beam
> > is moving diagonally in the x',z' plane.
> Tom, to emphasize the error in your claims, let the moving observer shine
> a real laser beam along one of the diagonal paths. Do you see that it is
> different from the main beam? I hope so....Its 'axis' is not vertical and
> it clearly does not get to the top in the same time as the diagonally
> moving points. Obviously its speed is not the same as that of the
> infinitesimal points.
>

This is a good point. In the stationary frame, shine a laser light so that it coincides exactly with the angle of the 'trace' of the 'light'.
Will this light reach the 'top' of the clock before the light inside the light clock?

How is the light clock different from a long corridor with mirrors at the top and the bottom, with a laser light shining at the same angle as the 'trace' of the 'diagonal light'?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
/
/
/_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

>
>
>
> Note, if an Ether really existed, the beam of a light clock would have to
> be angled diagonally at arctan(v/c) in order to return to the source. It
> would then genuinely take longer than if v = 0. The Lorentz factor would
> then apply.

If the Aether existed in the frame of the stationary observer, right?

>
> However the fact that TWLS is always very constant proves that no ether
> exists...and therefore LET and SR are both nothing but SciFi.
>
>
> > Tom Roberts
> --
> -- lover of truth

There is a way to use the light clock to illustrate time dilation, and I will come up with it later.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

The light clock illustration can be used to describe the concept of time dilation.

Refer to the Wikipedia article on time dilation and the light clock described there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The light clock illustrated consists of a light pulse that travels up and down in the rest frame of the clock. The time taken for the light to complete one cycle is 2L/c.

If the light clock is moving left to right relative to a stationary observer, if the the classical addition of velocities is used we get a speed for the light pulse relative to the stationary frame as being sqrt(v^2 + c^2) where v is the speed of the light clock.

This value is of course greater than c. The calculated speed of the light pulse in the moving clock frame projected onto the stationary frame has to be reduced to c using a suitable correction factor.

[Jane]

I had a look....no good.

> https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Special_relativity

This group has been trying to bring Einstein down for years but cannot.
The trouble is they don't realise how consistent SR is with its second
postulate. Also you have people like Tom Roberts who think they can
bamboozle people into submission with masses of 4D terminology and
associated jargon. One only needs 2D to analyse and understand SR.

> I would be willing to check the document and add my comments. I look
> forward to your publications, I am not afraid of looking at ideas I
> consider to be incorrect, after all I have been looking at Special
> Relativity for some time now.

I might let you...but like I said, it contains some sensational
discoveries and it suggest experiments to check them.

[Jane]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 21:03:25 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 8:21:44 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:

>> > Finally you have said something that is true. To see this, let's

ines are obviously 'nothing'
>> and the infinitesimal elements are not light. They move at
>> sqrt(c^2+v^2) in the moving frame and the beam takes exactly the same
>> time to go up and down in all frames.
>> > Summary: In S', at any given value of t' (>0), all portions of the
>> > beam have the same value of x', which is moving in the -x' direction
>> > with speed v; the beam's extent along z' is increasing, and the
>> > entire beam is moving diagonally in the x',z' plane.
>> Tom, to emphasize the error in your claims, let the moving observer
>> shine a real laser beam along one of the diagonal paths. Do you see
>> that it is different from the main beam? I hope so....Its 'axis' is not
>> vertical and it clearly does not get to the top in the same time as the
>> diagonally moving points. Obviously its speed is not the same as that
>> of the infinitesimal points.
>>
> This is a good point. In the stationary frame, shine a laser light so
> that it coincides exactly with the angle of the 'trace' of the 'light'.
> Will this light reach the 'top' of the clock before the light inside the
> light clock?

No. you did not get it.
The vertical laser is at rest in the stationary frame.
The diagonal laser is at rest in the MOVING frame.

The MOVING observer shines the diagonal laser pulse from a point adjacent
to the base of the vertical beam as it passes. The angle is arctan(v/c).
In the moving frame, that pulse moves along exactly the same diagonal as
the simultaneously emitted 'element of light' from the bottom of the
vertical beam. When the latter reaches the top, the diagonal pulse is
clearly well short (by gamma, It moves the same distance as the vertical
beam).
So which one moved at c in the moving frame, the pulse or the element?
They cannot both have done so.
This makes a mockery of Tom's attempted explanation and refutes SR
completely. I will be looking forward to his reply.

> How is the light clock different from a long corridor with mirrors at
> the top and the bottom, with a laser light shining at the same angle as
> the 'trace' of the 'diagonal light'?

You still don't quite understand. You have to consider the paths in the
MOVING FRAME.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> /
> /
> /

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Note, if an Ether really existed, the beam of a light clock would have
>> to be angled diagonally at arctan(v/c) in order to return to the
>> source. It would then genuinely take longer than if v = 0. The Lorentz
>> factor would then apply.
>
> If the Aether existed in the frame of the stationary observer, right?
>>
>> However the fact that TWLS is always very constant proves that no ether
>> exists...and therefore LET and SR are both nothing but SciFi.
>>
>>
>> > Tom Roberts
>> --
>> -- lover of truth
>
> There is a way to use the light clock to illustrate time dilation, and I
> will come up with it later.

There is no time dilation. The idea actually originated from the light
clock concept and Tom's correct description of the incorrect
interpretation. Because it also explained the MMX null result the idea
remained.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Yes, exactly, it is consistent with the second postulate. The Special Theory of Relativity
will be proved wrong at a time and place of the scientific communities choosing, not before,
and not before new discoveries come to light.

I am saying that the explanations given to me do not make sense in some of their variations,
and contain assumptions that are not clearly stated.

>Also you have people like Tom Roberts who think they can
> bamboozle people into submission with masses of 4D terminology and
> associated jargon. One only needs 2D to analyse and understand SR.

That is why avoid mathematics and stick to reason and basic algebra. I will not discuss what I do not understand.

> > I would be willing to check the document and add my comments. I look
> > forward to your publications, I am not afraid of looking at ideas I
> > consider to be incorrect, after all I have been looking at Special
> > Relativity for some time now.
> I might let you...but like I said, it contains some sensational
> discoveries and it suggest experiments to check them.
> --
> -- lover of truth

Good luck with your book.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

OK I understand.

> So which one moved at c in the moving frame, the pulse or the element?
> They cannot both have done so.
> This makes a mockery of Tom's attempted explanation and refutes SR
> completely. I will be looking forward to his reply.

Mark my words, he will find a way out of it.

> > How is the light clock different from a long corridor with mirrors at
> > the top and the bottom, with a laser light shining at the same angle as
> > the 'trace' of the 'diagonal light'?
> You still don't quite understand. You have to consider the paths in the
> MOVING FRAME.
> ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> > /
> > /
> > /
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Note, if an Ether really existed, the beam of a light clock would have
> >> to be angled diagonally at arctan(v/c) in order to return to the
> >> source. It would then genuinely take longer than if v = 0. The Lorentz
> >> factor would then apply.
> >
> > If the Aether existed in the frame of the stationary observer, right?
> >>
> >> However the fact that TWLS is always very constant proves that no ether
> >> exists...and therefore LET and SR are both nothing but SciFi.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Tom Roberts
> >> --
> >> -- lover of truth
> >
> > There is a way to use the light clock to illustrate time dilation, and I
> > will come up with it later.
> There is no time dilation.

How do you support this assertion?

[Jane]

He will say time is different in the moving frame and the instant that
the vertical beam reaches the top in the stationary frame is not the same
'instant' in the moving frame...all expressed in totally unnecessary 4D
jargon. This is circular logic...and I already have a response.

The standard relativist escape route goes like this: "If one assumes SR
is correct, one can produce transforms which can then be used in a most
baffling way to appear to refute any proof that the assumption
is wrong".
That really only demonstrates the consistency of the theory.
SR is not actually wrong. It perfectly well describes a hypothetical
universe that unfortunately cannot exist.
Einstein was certainly a genius. He could have been the best used car
salesman of all time.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

This means that you simply cannot analyse the light movement 'in the light clock frame' using the stationary frames and its times.
You can, however, it does assume a greater distance in the stationary frame in the same time or greater time in stationary frame, which is a projection, not actual.

>
> The standard relativist escape route goes like this: "If one assumes SR
> is correct, one can produce transforms which can then be used in a most
> baffling way to appear to refute any proof that the assumption
> is wrong".
> That really only demonstrates the consistency of the theory.
> SR is not actually wrong. It perfectly well describes a hypothetical
> universe that unfortunately cannot exist.

I think that sums it up nicely.

However, there is the inconvenient truth of the DeSitter and other experiments which prove that light is measured at c by all observers.

That of course means that light is measured being emitted from the star, that is clearly moving towards Earth, and is also measured as c by instruments on Earth, and the Earth is also moving. This was before Relativity. Countless experiments, however Hafele - Keating is considered something of a circus even by supporters of SRT.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

There is force and motion that changes time order.
Space comes first.

[Jane]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 18:44:30 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 4:26:32 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:

>> The standard relativist escape route goes like this: "If one assumes SR

Note my typo: that should read "If one assumes P2 correct..." not 'SR'.

>> is correct, one can produce transforms which can then be used in a most
>> baffling way to appear to refute any proof that the assumption is
>> wrong".
>> That really only demonstrates the consistency of the theory.
>> SR is not actually wrong. It perfectly well describes a hypothetical
>> universe that unfortunately cannot exist.
>
>
> I think that sums it up nicely.
>
> However, there is the inconvenient truth of the DeSitter and other
> experiments which prove that light is measured at c by all observers.

I have looked at the de Sitter claims and they are refuted by Uncle
John's work. de Sitter's calculations were based on the existence of an
Ether and many of his calculations were inappropriate. What he believed
to be binary stars were probably nor that type at all. Also, that fellow
Fox reckoned there was enough matter and electric charge in space to
reduce the speed differences in emitted light. I have several other very
plausible explanations that will be available in my thesis.

> That of course means that light is measured being emitted from the star,
> that is clearly moving towards Earth, and is also measured as c by
> instruments on Earth, and the Earth is also moving. This was before
> Relativity. Countless experiments, however Hafele - Keating is
> considered something of a circus even by supporters of SRT.

All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full of holes.
Any which uses interferometry assumes light behave like an oscillator and
is plainly wrong. I have already alluded to Michelson's 1913 moving
mirror experiment which was a blatant farce. It actually refutes SR yet
it was possibly the one factor that saved Einstein from obscurity.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Someone posted a list I suppose I have to go through all of them.

I think one approach, out in the open, is to create a parallel experiment and trap, yes trap, adherents to Special Relativity to
get into an impossible situation which they cannot explain their way out of. I had success with the light clock experiment in the past, and even now, it is evident that the light clock experiment is can be used if you assume the second postulate. Then again, many of the illustrations of the light clock are inaccurate. What you see the light clock doing depends on assumptions.

For example, ask the question, does light from a star get emitted as spherical wave fronts when seen in the frame of reference of the star and of the Earth? What is the answer to that? Let me get a pen and paper and draw that one out.

If the star accelerates and reaches velocity v or the Earth accelerates and reaches velocity v the time taken for frequency change cannot be the same. These are not symmetric phenomenon.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote:
> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full of holes.

Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no
substance.

Tom Roberts

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 7:17:15 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

> All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full of holes.

And your evidence in support of this claim is what, exactly?

“I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers”
- Isaac Asimov

[Maciej Wozniak]

And in the meantime in the real worlds, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep
measuring t'=t in improper seconds.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

What about particle accelerators? They must be reaching their limits as particles approach speed of light?

[Maciej Wozniak]

They may. There are a lot [alef 0] of possible
interpreteations.

[Jane]

Light's 'Frequency' is defined as 'wave emission rate'. Anywhere else
that frequency is 'wave arrival rate'. Wavelength does not change.

[Jane]

For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry and
regard light as a travelling oscillator. They all claim he travel times
must be different for a fringe displacement to occur. Trouble is, if they
are not the same under constant conditions, the fringe pattern will
continually move. That is not what happens. Michelson's moving mirror
experiment is a perfect example and actually refutes SR....so is Sagnac.

Fringe displacement is caused by different numbers of wavelength in the
two paths, nothing else. When that is used, all those interferometry
experiments fully support Newton and refute SR.

That should keep you quiet for a while.

> Tom Roberts

[Jane]

A fast moving group of charged particles contitutes a current, which if
moving near light speed in a vacuum, generates a huge back emf. That
opposes the applied field, reduces the acceleration it would normally
cause and gives the appearance of a mass increase in the particles.

[Errol Rooijakker]

> cause and g̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ o̶f̶ a̶ m̶a̶s̶s̶ i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ in the particles.

you don't undrestand. The actual source of your inflation is
*_your_own_government_*. They recently *_wanted_kill_you_* with
*_"vaccines"_* and a *_fake_virus_*, which
*_"could_be_there_12_days_in_advance"_*, *_"no_symptoms"_*, the reason for
which *_"you_have_to_suffocate_in_face_masks"_*,
*_"with_all_existent_symptoms"_*, *_"keep_6_feet_apart_from_people"_*,
*_"getting_booster_"vaccines"_* for the *_sake_of_the_others,_not_yours"_*
etc etc and etc.

your capitalist government is the enemy of your children. Of which you
already can't have. Accordingly, there is a decline in earth population,
one (1) milliard already gone. They seemingly want to kill you with
"vaccines", depleted uranium, food contamination, chemtrails to block the
sun for climate reasons, and similar.

[Mikko]

On 2023-05-20 00:45:41 +0000, Jane said:

> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full of
>>> holes.
>>
>> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no
>> substance.
>
> For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry and
> regard light as a travelling oscillator. They all claim he travel times
> must be different for a fringe displacement to occur. Trouble is, if they
> are not the same under constant conditions, the fringe pattern will
> continually move. That is not what happens. Michelson's moving mirror
> experiment is a perfect example and actually refutes SR....so is Sagnac.

Special relativity can explain the behaviour of the fringes in
Fizeau, Michelson-Morley, and Sagnac experiments. You can't.

Mikko

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 7:45:44 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote:
> >> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full of
> >> holes.
> >
> > Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no
> > substance.
> For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry and
> regard light as a travelling oscillator. They all claim he travel times
> must be different for a fringe displacement to occur. Trouble is, if they
> are not the same under constant conditions, the fringe pattern will
> continually move.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now that you've finally revealed one of your critiques,
it's even stupider than I had imagined might be the case!

[Paparios]

El lunes, 15 de mayo de 2023 a las 21:32:08 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:15:48 PM UTC+5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> Some questions:
> >>So in S' it traveled a longer
> > > distance in a longer time;

> In S' the leading edge of the light travels a distance 2L. Why should anything happening inside S' change?

As usual, you can't read in English. There are two observers (in frame S inside the train, and frame S' on the embankment). The observer in S just sees light signals moving up and down and calculates the light photons take dt=2L/c seconds in the path, where L is the distance between the mirrors A and B.

The observer in the embankment frame S', on the other hand, sees the train moving at speed v (to the right). So the observer sees each photon moving up, but when the photon emitted from A reaches the top mirror B, mirror B is no longer at the same coordinate as mirror A was when the photon was emitted.
Therefore, the light photons, as seen from S', follow a diagonal path (of length D up and down).
Hence, the total time for the light pulse to trace its path is given now by dt'=2D/c , where D=sqrt((1/2(vdt')^2+L^2).
From these two equations you get dt'=dt/sqr(1-v^2/c^2), implying dt' is longer than dt.

Simple geometry and logic and the consideration that (according to the second principle) light signals move at c in both frames.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 17:34:50 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 15 de mayo de 2023 a las 21:32:08 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:15:48 PM UTC+5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Some questions:
> > >>So in S' it traveled a longer
> > > > distance in a longer time;
>
> > In S' the leading edge of the light travels a distance 2L. Why should anything happening inside S' change?
>
> As usual, you can't read in English. There are two observers (in frame S inside the train, and frame S' on the embankment). The observer in S just sees light signals moving up and down and calculates the light photons take dt=2L/c seconds in the path, where L is the distance between the mirrors A and B.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden

by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep

measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

[Jane]

Idiot! Of course I can.

> Mikko

[Jane]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 03:00:36 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 7:45:44 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote:
>> >> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full of
>> >> holes.
>> >
>> > Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no
>> > substance.
>> For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry and
>> regard light as a travelling oscillator. They all claim he travel times
>> must be different for a fringe displacement to occur. Trouble is, if
>> they are not the same under constant conditions, the fringe pattern
>> will continually move.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Now that you've finally revealed one of your critiques, it's even
> stupider than I had imagined might be the case!

Sorry, fool. It is a fact, the travel times in Sagnac, Moving mirror or
similar experiments have to be equal to produce a steady fringe pattern
during constant rotation. The numbers of wavelengths in the two paths
does not change except during an angular acceleration. I'm sure your
mentor Tom Roberts knows that. It is experimentally verified.
This is obviously not the case in a linear Michelson type interferometer.
Fringes move during a change in path length....but all those which use
travel time differences divide by wavelength effectively revert to Newton
because the travel times are just [(path length)/c] which is just path
length/λ when multiplied by 'frequency' c/λ.

[Mikko]

If you could you would.

Mikko

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

According to science's central principle of QM uncertainty
all measurement is uncertain. How would you know how close you are?
How would you prove it?
That still remains uncertain. Science wants something it does not have.
Uncertainty remain uncertainty by sciences own principle.

[Fermin Breda]

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> According to science's central principle of QM uncertainty all
> measurement is uncertain. How would you know how close you are? How
> would you prove it?
> That still remains uncertain. Science wants something it does not have.
> Uncertainty remain uncertainty by sciences own principle.

yes, true. But the closeness is insignificant, once an event has happen.

nazi nato running away like pigs

*_Russian_Forces_Advance_Further_After_Bakhmut_l_Fall_Of_Khromove_*
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/iRLECnwtGIqF

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/19/23 7:50 PM, Jane wrote:
> A fast moving group of charged particles contitutes a current, which
> if moving near light speed in a vacuum, generates a huge back emf.
> That opposes the applied field, reduces the acceleration it would
> normally cause and gives the appearance of a mass increase in the
> particles.

This is trivially false in classical electrodynamics (CE). The success
of thousands of particle accelerators designed using CE illustrates how
valid it is in the world we inhabit.

Apparently you don't know very much about basic physics. You should
learn about it before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

[whodat]

On 5/21/2023 3:08 PM, Fermin Breda wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> According to science's central principle of QM uncertainty all
>> measurement is uncertain. How would you know how close you are? How
>> would you prove it?
>> That still remains uncertain. Science wants something it does not have.
>> Uncertainty remain uncertainty by sciences own principle.
>
> yes, true. But the closeness is insignificant, once an event has happen.
>
> nazi nato running away like pigs
>

That must be Russian pigs. In America wild pigs attack, they do not
flee.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/19/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full
>>> of holes.
>> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no
>> substance.
>
> For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry
> and regard light as a travelling oscillator.

Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain
measurements of the world we inhabit.

You clearly do not understand what science is, and physics in
particular: we are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world we
inhabit, and then testing those models via experiment. We can apply
classical electrodynamics to these experiments, calculate its
predictions, and compare to the actual results -- they agree within
experimental resolutions, so these experiments all support classical
electrodynamics. The fact that they also support other theories/models
is completely irrelevant.

> They all claim he travel times must be different for a fringe
> displacement to occur.

Stop making stuff up and apply the model to the experiment. IOW: do
physics, rather than whatever it is you are attempting to do.

> [... further nonsense]

Tom Roberts

[Jane]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 08:34:47 -0700, Paparios wrote:

> El lunes, 15 de mayo de 2023 a las 21:32:08 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com
> escribió:

>

> The observer in the embankment frame S', on the other hand, sees the
> train moving at speed v (to the right). So the observer sees each photon
> moving up, but when the photon emitted from A reaches the top mirror B,
> mirror B is no longer at the same coordinate as mirror A was when the
> photon was emitted. Therefore, the light photons, as seen from S',
> follow a diagonal path (of length D up and down).
> Hence, the total time for the light pulse to trace its path is given now
> by dt'=2D/c , where D=sqrt((1/2(vdt')^2+L^2).
> From these two equations you get dt'=dt/sqr(1-v^2/c^2), implying dt' is
> longer than dt.

Poor fellow. There is one vertical beam of light. It does not change in
any way no matter how many moving observers look at it.

I explained your misconception elsewhere. What go diagonally in a moving
observer's frame are infinitesimal elements of the beam. They are not
light or anything else. The diagonal lines are just graphical
representations of the movements of those infinitesimal points. There is
an infinite number of such diagonal lines. Not one resembles a light beam
in any way. What is more, their speed in the moving frame is obviously
sqrt(c^2+v^2)

> Simple geometry and logic and the consideration that (according to the
> second principle) light signals move at c in both frames.

If you want some simple logic, let the moving observer project a laser
beam along one of he diagonals. You will soon see that it is nothing like
the diagonal line and that it moves at a slower speed.

[Paparios]

El domingo, 21 de mayo de 2023 a las 21:49:24 UTC-4, Jane escribió:
> On Sat, 20 May 2023 08:34:47 -0700, Paparios wrote:
>
> > El lunes, 15 de mayo de 2023 a las 21:32:08 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com
> > escribió:
>
> >
> > The observer in the embankment frame S', on the other hand, sees the
> > train moving at speed v (to the right). So the observer sees each photon
> > moving up, but when the photon emitted from A reaches the top mirror B,
> > mirror B is no longer at the same coordinate as mirror A was when the
> > photon was emitted. Therefore, the light photons, as seen from S',
> > follow a diagonal path (of length D up and down).
> > Hence, the total time for the light pulse to trace its path is given now
> > by dt'=2D/c , where D=sqrt((1/2(vdt')^2+L^2).
> > From these two equations you get dt'=dt/sqr(1-v^2/c^2), implying dt' is
> > longer than dt.

> Poor fellow. There is one vertical beam of light. It does not change in
> any way no matter how many moving observers look at it.
>

Sure, inside the train (frame S) photons move vertically up and down. The question is how the observer in the embankment frame S' sees (or an instrument measures) that photon movement.

When you ride a car on a rainy day, static observers in the road see the water raindrops falling vertically to the ground.
On the other hand, for the observer inside the car, those raindrops are seeing falling into the wind shield at a slanted angle (ie not vertically).
This is the same effect observed in the light clock experiment.

> I explained your misconception elsewhere. What go diagonally in a moving
> observer's frame are infinitesimal elements of the beam. They are not
> light or anything else. The diagonal lines are just graphical
> representations of the movements of those infinitesimal points. There is
> an infinite number of such diagonal lines. Not one resembles a light beam
> in any way. What is more, their speed in the moving frame is obviously
> sqrt(c^2+v^2)

Those infinitesimal elements are called photons and, for sure, we are able to emit a single photon and follow its path.

> > Simple geometry and logic and the consideration that (according to the
> > second principle) light signals move at c in both frames.
> If you want some simple logic, let the moving observer project a laser
> beam along one of he diagonals. You will soon see that it is nothing like
> the diagonal line and that it moves at a slower speed.

There is no need to change the thought experiment. The setting is quite clear and the results agree with SR.

[Dono.]

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 6:49:24 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

> Poor fellow. There is one vertical beam of light. It does not change in
> any way no matter how many moving observers look at it.
>

Dumbass,

You pretend to know physics but you have no clue about aberration.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 00:58:44 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/19/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote:
> >>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full
> >>> of holes.
> >> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no
> >> substance.
> >
> > For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry
> > and regard light as a travelling oscillator.
> Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain
> measurements of the world we inhabit.
>
> You clearly do not understand what science is, and physics in
> particular: we are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world we
> inhabit,

Right, you are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world
of your moronic delusions.
And you scream that we're FORCED. To THE BEST WAY.

[Jane]

It is all in my thesis. You will soon be able to buy it PDF or Epub for
$10.
I'm not giving away secrets now for the idiots here to plagiarize.

[Jane]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 17:57:02 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/19/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote:
>>>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full of
>>>> holes.
>>> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no
>>> substance.
>>
>> For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry and
>> regard light as a travelling oscillator.
>
> Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain
> measurements of the world we inhabit.

The model they use is fundamentally flawed in theory. The model is one in
which light behaves like a moving oscillator and always moves at c.
It does neither.

> You clearly do not understand..

Tom, you seem incapable of understanding that some other people DO
understand that what many others have been coerced into understanding has
been ill conceived and misunderstood for centuries.

>what science is, and physics in
> particular: we are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world we
> inhabit, and then testing those models via experiment. We can apply
> classical electrodynamics to these experiments, calculate its
> predictions, and compare to the actual results -- they agree within
> experimental resolutions, so these experiments all support classical
> electrodynamics. The fact that they also support other theories/models
> is completely irrelevant.
>

>> They all claim the travel times must be different for a fringe

>> displacement to occur.
>
> Stop making stuff up and apply the model to the experiment. IOW: do
> physics, rather than whatever it is you are attempting to do.

Tom, have you actually looked at Michelson's 1913 experiment ...also
repeated by Majorama' and many others...
It is an absolute farce. It claims to refute ballistic theory on the
grounds that this would lead to equal travel times in the two paths, and
prohibit a phase difference on detection. Sagnac is analysed on similar
grounds. This is completely wrong for the simple reason that the speed of
the beams differs from c and different numbers of wave will be present in
the beams during constant rotation. Since the beam speeds are different
an wavelengths are identical, the wave arrival rates are not the same. So
contrary to Michelson's belief, the beam had different arrival
'frequencies', namely (c+v)/λ an (c-v)/λ.
In other words Michelson based his analysis on the prior assumption of
constant light speed in order to prove that this was indeed true.....ie.,
he used circular logic.

Also and even more obvious, if the travel times are NOT equal, as
predicted by Newton's laws, the fringe pattern will never be stationary.
That it itself refutes SR.

>> [... further nonsense]

Tom, snipping truth wont make it go away.

[Jane]

Yes we know all that.
We also know the raindrops move diagonally at sqrt(c^2 + v^2) in the car
frame.

> This is the same effect observed in the light clock experiment.

>
>> I explained your misconception elsewhere. What go diagonally in a
>> moving observer's frame are infinitesimal elements of the beam. They
>> are not light or anything else. The diagonal lines are just graphical
>> representations of the movements of those infinitesimal points. There
>> is an infinite number of such diagonal lines. Not one resembles a light
>> beam in any way. What is more, their speed in the moving frame is
>> obviously sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>
> Those infinitesimal elements are called photons and, for sure, we are
> able to emit a single photon and follow its path.

They are not called photons. They are infinitesimal...ie nothing. Every
element in a photon follows a different diagonal path nd moves at
sqrt(c^2
+ v^2)

>> > Simple geometry and logic and the consideration that (according to
>> > the second principle) light signals move at c in both frames.
>> If you want some simple logic, let the moving observer project a laser
>> beam along one of he diagonals. You will soon see that it is nothing
>> like the diagonal line and that it moves at a slower speed.
>
> There is no need to change the thought experiment. The setting is quite
> clear and the results agree with SR.

That is why they are both obviously wrong.