Pradeep Koshy
In my post I present 3 figures on the light clock. In the third, I show how the light signal moves in reality. I wanted those who are familiar with SR to assess, analyze and comment on whether I am right or wrong. I wish that if you want to contribute to something, you should not deviate from the topic.
In the “Question-001.pdf” the Figs 001 and 002 are correct. Fig. 003 isn’t correct. The light that is flashed, say, by a boy in a wagon that moves with a speed V, really moves along the hypotenuses, say for an observer on a platform, the wagon moves behind; quite equally if, say, the boy will throw a ball up with a speed v, and the ball returns down – for the observer the ball will move in space along the hypothesizes; while for the boy both – the light and the ball move up and down orthogonally to the wagon’s floor.
The unique difference in this case is in that that the ball moves along the hypotenuses with speed Vh=V+v [bold means a 3D vector], while light moves in space after was radiated independently on its source speed [here V], and only with the speed of light, c.
Since for the observer light passes way that is in Lorentz factor larger than for the boy, the real time interval between events “light radiation” – “light returning to floor”, t, really is, of course, the same for both – observer and boy, at that for the observer the real light speed’s Vh orthogonal component is lesser in the Lorentz factor, however the boy’s clock ticks slower in the Lorentz factor, and he measures time interval t’ such, that in wagon the speed of light is also c.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
You write
1) In the “Question-001.pdf” the Figs 001 and 002 are correct. Fig. 003 isn’t correct.
In my opinion, what I write in the post is that: Fig. 001 is correct; Fig. 002 is wrong; Fig. 003 is correct.
2) The light that is flashed, say, by a boy in a wagon that moves with a speed V, really moves along the hypotenuses, say for an observer on a platform, the wagon moves behind; quite equally if, say, the boy will throw a ball up with a speed v, and the ball returns down – for the observer the ball will move in space along the hypothesizes; while for the boy both – the light and the ball move up and down orthogonally to the wagon’s floor.
You should only describe what is in Fig. 003: there is no boy, no wagon, no one throwing a ball. If you want to comment on something, come up with an argument, then you shouldn't change assumptions that were there from the beginning.
Fig. 003 is a light clock. This is described in the literature and we do not need to repeat ourselves all the time. The mathematical model we are talking about should be as simple as possible.
3) The rest you write has nothing to do with my figures.
4) I ask the following question to anyone who wants to comment on my post:
Why does the light signal move diagonally in a moving light clock, see Fig. 002.
“…Why does the light signal move diagonally in a moving light clock, see Fig. 002.…”
- again, see the SS post above – photons/light that are flashed by a boy in moving with a speed V wagon, when the boy makes “a light clock”, obtain the speed V component along the wagon motion direction from the moving with this speed light source – completely equally as thrown by the boy ball obtains from the boy the speed Vcomponent along the wagon motion direction.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
You don't have to comment on my post and answer my question if you change something in my statement, because then we're not talking about the same thing.
SRT is completely erroneous since it is based on the wrong kind of transformations (Lorentz): they have lost the scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect (which defines the asymmetry between approach and removal). For more details, see my brochure "Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory" (2000):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339090652_Memoir_on_the_Theory_of_Relativity_and_Unified_Field_Theory
Lev Verkhovsky
Finally someone who says the same thing as me about the special theory of relativity, SR. Thanks.
And of course it is the case that the reason SR is wrong, nonsense, is Lorentz Transformations, LT.
Lorentz Transformations do NOT verify our reality. If you want, you can check my articles and books about SR.
But I have asked the question in my post about why the light signal is skewed in a moving light clock. It is Fig. 002 in the attached file.
So all those who are adepts of SR, but also others who have analyzed this theory, please look at Fig. 001 (light clock at rest) and Fig. 002 (light clock in motion, with speed v) and explain what is it that in Fig. 002 light signal goes askew/diagonally.
Please do NOT refer to links or anything else. Explain simply what causes the device pointing at right angles to the ceiling in the light clock in Fig. 001 to change its angle and move diagonally in Fig. 002.
What kind of forces, what kind of mysterious wizardry is it that knows exactly at which angle the light signal must move in order for us to be able to calculate the exact Lorentz factor from triangles created in the figure Fig. 002.
For more than a hundred years, many authors have argued that SRT is wrong and offer their own solutions to the problem. Yes, everyone has their own idea and has no desire to understand other people’s.
Therefore, everyone pulls in his own direction, as in Kpylov’s fable “The Swan, the Crayfish and the Pike.” It is not surprising that things are not moving forward.
Thanks, but it would be much better if you answered my questions.
What kind of forces, what kind of mysterious wizardry is it that knows exactly at which angle the light signal must move in order for us to be able to calculate the exact Lorentz factor from triangles created in the figure Fig. 002?
I forgot to say that I want the answer only from physicists or mathematicians. No philosophers or others, please.
>>it would be much better if you answered my questions.
To answer your questions, I must delve into your reasoning. But I have no internal incentive to do this, since I have come to the conclusion that the Lorentz transformation formulas are erroneous. But you probably also have no incentive to delve into my reasoning. Therefore, we will each endlessly repeat our own.
Lev Verkhovsky
I understand you and I want to say that I have no interest in repeating ourselves. I have read the part of your article concerning SR.
Fig. 2 is correct, but I believe that when it comes to SR, you don't need to think about the Doppler effect. In the thought experiments that Einstein did, this effect is not addressed. And it's not needed. It is enough if you calculate the time the light signal needs to cover a certain distance and the time the reference system covers during this time. Special relativity, SR, and Lorentz Transformations, LT, are about an event and how it is reflected in two inertial reference systems.
You don't need to delve into my reasoning because I don't have one. Fig. 002 from the attached document is the image of a light clock in motion. It is presented in many places in the literature.
Jan Slowak
Oh, you've seen my main idea -- that the Doppler Effect is fundamentally important because it changes scales. And this must be taken into account in the transformation formulas.
You didn't approve of my idea. But I thank you for your interest.
Lev Verkhovsky
I have neither approved nor rejected your idea with the Doppler effect. I have only said that this phenomenon (Doppler effect) does not belong with SR.
However, I believe that the Doppler effect itself is excellent proof that SR is wrong. Doppler effect is about how an observer determines if the light source is moving towards the observer, if it is moving away from it or if the observer and the light source are stationary relative to each other. Doppler effect is about the same components that you have when you talk about SR and Lorentz Transformations, LT. But the formula for red or blue shift does NOT include the Lorentz factor.
This alone should be enough evidence against SR!
I have written about this in my book That is why theory of special relativity is nonsense.
So, what about my question?
Jan Slowak Since I have not read your book `That is why theory of special relativity is nonsense`, I will ask a clarifying question: do you agree that in the TRUE THEORY the Doppler effect should be somehow reflected in the transformation formulas?
Pradeep Koshy
Sergey Shevchenko
Lev Verkhovsky
Now we should be honest with each other, I think.
I have attached a document with three figures and I wanted answers from those familiar with special relativity, SR.
I repeat my question once more:
What kind of forces, what kind of mysterious wizardry is it that knows exactly at which angle the light signal must move in order for us to be able to calculate the exact Lorentz factor from triangles created in the figure Fig. 002?
Please describe your answer in your own words.
Jan Slowak,
“…I repeat my question once more:
What kind of forces, what kind of mysterious wizardry is it that knows exactly at which angle the light signal must move in order for us to be able to calculate the exact Lorentz factor from triangles created in the figure Fig. 002? ….”
- your question is already answered in the SS posts on page 1:
- if a source of light is at rest in 3D space, and radiates, say, grin, light, the light is observed isotropically around the source as green light;
- if the sources moves with a speed V, then the radiated light [particles “photons”] obtains additional momentum from the source, and so light in direction along the source motion is bluer, than in the at rest case, redder in opposite to motion direction, and its color changes from blue to read in other directions.
Besides, correspondingly, though light fundamentally independently on a color always moves in the space only with the standard speed of light, c, its speed, if light moves in other then the ± source’s motion direction, obtains the speed’s component, [including at moving along + direction, as that is in your Fig. 002], which equal to the source speed.
Since an observer that is co-moving with the source light has corresponding additional momentum/speed comparing with the at rest case, he sees only isotropic green light, that light moves orthogonally;
- and thinks, moreover – measures – that the “speed of light” at orthogonal light motion is equal to standard c. Of course, really this speed is the orthogonal component of c, while the component along the direction is the source speed value, V , and so the orthogonal component, which co-moving observer sees, is lesser by Pythagoras theorem in reverse Lorentz factor. Just so in this case the really extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle acts.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
1) Your answer on page 1 is NOT correct: you cannot make an argument FOR SR by using the result FROM SR, you use the Lorentz factor!
2) You write about green light: It does not matter for SR what wavelength light has.
3) You cannot write anything other than the concepts/input parameters that define SR:
Two inertial reference systems, one light signal.
Jan Slowak
Your expression "....that light moves independently of ....." is ambiguous.
Note that the precise concept about light is that its "speed" is invariant.
Speed refers to the modulus of the velocity vector.
Also, note the following: Let us assume that the light is emitted from point A and reaches the ceiling at point B. We have two different events:
1) light leaving A
2) light reaching B
Those two events are real objective facts on which every observer has to agree. The observer that sees the light clock moving, also sees point B moving, therefore the light path has to be as Figure 002.
I hope this helps to clarify the concept.
PS: You don't need to be a mathematician or a physicist to know this. Even a philosopher understands it, in other words, any non-crackpot person understands it.(or at least understands that he doesn't understand and shuts up)
Justo Pastor Lambare
1) Regarding the speed of light, I use the definition based on Maxwell's work:
The speed and direction of light are independent of the motion of the source and the observer.
The speed of light, c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2;
You see that the speed of light depends only on the properties of the medium through which it moves.
2) What you write is the same thing that is in my figures. We don't need to repeat ourselves all the time. I have asked a question and wanted an answer to my question.
3) Regarding your PS: Please don't write how other people are or can be. We must show respect for each other and preferably talk only about the subject in question.
What kind of forces, what kind of mysterious wizardry is it that knows exactly at which angle the light signal must move in order for us to be able to calculate the exact Lorentz factor from triangles created in the figure Fig. 002?
Jan Slowak
I just pointed out that is not what Einstein's relativity says. The Special Theory of Relativity requires only that the speed of light be constant, i.e., it requires that all observers assign the same scalar value to c. It does not say anything about its direction in space.
Justo Pastor Lambare
1.1) I know what SR is saying, I have worked with SR for several years. There is no problem with the speed of light c, it is only c that is used everywhere, in all formulas and in all reference systems. The "stationary frame of reference" S uses c, the frame of reference in motion uses c.
1.2) The basis for SR is about two reference systems whose x-axis and x'-axis coincide. And in this model, events occur on this common axis. Even the light signals that connect the two reference systems move on this axis.
That I mentioned that even the direction of a light signal is independent of the movement of the source is about Fig. 2 in my attached file.
2) We are talking here about Fig. 2.
2.1) You say "that objective reality is only one". I usually say "we only have one reality". It's the same thing, we agree on this. Don't forget this! But if that is so, why do you get two different times and two different lengths for one and the same object or event within SR?
2.2) There is no "observer who sees the clock moving" in Fig. 2. But even if there were observers one outside the light clock and one inside it, what they observe is their SUBJECTIVE observation. But we only have one reality and in it the light signal moves at right angle to the ceiling and the floor!
3) So our reality tells us that the light signal in a moving light clock moves according to Fig. 3.
Dear Jan Slowak,
- in this thread already a number of times in SS and JPL posts it is explained for you, that what you write is incorrect, and why it is incorrect; mostly as comments to your really rational Fig. 002, but you stubbornly repeat your strange claims. Including, say, that
“…3) So our reality tells us that the light signal in a moving light clock moves according to Fig. 3.…..”
- what is n Fig.003 really is something too strange at all. Believe me, that if in points A and B some mirrors are placed, and in A some light flush happens, then the light hits into B mirror, return to A mirror, and by no means in points C and D; and that can be any number of times, if the mirrors are perfect enough;
- and that is in all realties, since that are some concrete events in some material system, which [concrete events], as that is stated in the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, are the same in all inertial realities.
Regrettably you are rather active in a few other RG threads, what really is a spamming, so I would like to ask you to be lesser active, though better not to post in other threads at all.
Cheers
Dear Sergey Shevchenko
1) First, I want to point out the way you write and address yourself to me:
a) "is explained for you" so if I were a child at school
b) "that what you write is incorrect, and why it is incorrect", "but you stubbornly repeat your strange claims"
Should I blindly believe what you say? Do you have a monopoly on knowledge?
Take for example the Aristotelian geocentric system that dominated for about 1500 years. Who could say no to that? Who dared defy "the accepted narrative"?
Despite this, it was wrong, and we know today that it is the helicentric system that applies!
2) You continue and comment on Fig. 3:
a) "Believe me" --> I don't believe in anyone. I read several different sources, I analyze, I draw figures, I think for myself. Everything must be correct, there should be no doubts!
b) "if in points A and B some mirrors are placed" --> The entire ceiling and floor are mirrors, we don't need to add any extras
c) "if the mirrors are perfect enough" --> Within SR, they work with thought experiments, so all mirrors are perfect
d) "then the light hits into B mirror, return to A mirror, and by no means in points C and D" --> my figure Fig. 3 is quite clear. It can be seen that during the time the light signal moves from the floor to the ceiling, the light clock moves along the distance BC. It is logical!
Likewise, during the time the light signal moves from the ceiling to the floor, the light clock moves by the same distance. This follows the same logic.
Conclusion: The time it takes to pass the floor-ceiling-floor distance is the same as in the light clock at rest.
3) What you write in the last section is pure insult! It goes against the police on every platform on the Internet.
Dear Valentyn Nastasenko
You write in your e-mail: Thank you for the clarification.
As I understand it, your objections are against limiting the speed of light?
But in the form that you presented on ResearchGate, there are no strict justifications, they are mostly logical (or am I mistaken?). In this case, it will be difficult for you to prove anything to the participants in the discussion. I just wanted to understand the level of gravity of your arguments.
1) "your objections are against limiting the speed of light"
Where did I write this? Can you refer and quote?
2) "the form that you presented on ResearchGate"
Idem
3) " I just wanted to understand the level of gravity of your arguments"
What I write (most about SR, a little about Big Bang) I write with the greatest possible seriousness! I'm not looking to just write. I prefer a dialogue with researchers, mathematicians, physicists who wants a serious discussion about a particular subject.
Due to the fact that the assumption of constant speed of light is not true, special relativity is incorrect. It is a waste of time to explain the errors in each inference of special relativity separately, but the proof must be based on the logic of special relativity, that is, using the method of contradiction. For example, using the logic of relativity to prove that the assumption of constant speed of light is incorrect: Preprint On the Relativity of the Speed of Light
.
X. D. Dongfang
Thanks for your comment and advice.
I have found flaws/inaccuracies in several books where the derivation of Lorentz transformations is done.
It goes without saying that the error is the assumption that the speed of light is constant. It is constant in vacuum, c, but in a reference system one must talk about the relative speed between a material point and the wavefront of the light signal and this is c±v.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication