Jump to content

Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Posts

    8689
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Everything posted by Mordred

  1. No idea on the down point.. any measure is relative to the observer in any physics. Regardless of model. As far as the measurements taken well There is a huge list ranging from observing stellar measurements of extremely fast moving stars. The CMB etc etc. To using extremely high speed cyclotrons, Historicaly though Jupiter was used along with the sun back in 1675 done in Paris by Roemer. He also included Jupiters 4 brightest moons. By knowing their orbit he measured different transition times over a long period of time and used that data to get the value of c. The value he got back then is pretty much the same. 186,000 miles per second. We have taken that to incredibly higher precision using extremely high precision tests. Some of which I posted earlier. Back when I mentioned error margins a few days ago. (one way speed of light/two way speed of light tests. The St Ives test etc etc all involve measuring c). With modern telescopes there are plenty of objects emitting light travelling at near c. We still measure the speed of light from them as invariant c edit just a side note all massless objects will have a velocity c. (mass is resistance to inertia change(or acceleration aka Newtons laws of inertia.). Knowing the definition of mass is essential to understand SR and GR or any physics theory it applies to all physics theories.
  2. Any measurement taken of the speed of light will give the value of c. A measurement is defined as an Observer.
  3. An observer can himself be at near c and still measure the velocity of a light signal as being c even if the ship with the emitter is also going near c. Regardless of the velocity of emitter or observer any measurement of the velocity will equal c. (this is the part where the length contraction and time dilation kicks in of the Lorentz transformations. ) This is also the point where the deviations occur from the classical physics. LOL is typically also the hardest to get people to accept. Hence all the research and studies, this required a huge burden of proof. So far its tested as true to extremely high precision
  4. We cross talked while I was editing your correct in the section you quoted the rest of my above post contains an edit where I added details on the moving train. When the train moves Right down the middle is no longer true and we must now account for the train motion. All events (a term that includes observer-emitter-coordinates-signals ie light etc) are always relative to the observer. Yes an observer will measure the velocity of light at c regardless of the velocity of the emitter. This is an invariant quantity. It never varies regardless of observer Nor how fast the emitter is travelling. If your good up to hear I suggest to better understand the math of SR we cover principle of equivalence next. If you have further questions on this stage ask away. As we can see though there is only limited positions where the two clock are simultaneous and where those point lie will vary.
  5. Oh I will try to keep the math as light as possible, Hence I'm also going to keep this in slow stages to make sure each stage is understood. lets start with a stationary rod. We both know light takes time to travel from A to B. So lets set a clock at each end. Now there is only one distance from each clock where an observer will read the same time on both clocks. Can you tell me where it is ? (classical physics only needed here). Yes this stage seems redundant but its important to understand relativity of simultaneity itself. The obvious answer is any point where the distance between the observer and both clocks are equal. It could be at the midpoint between each clock L/2 or it can be any distance where the length between observer and clock A =the length between observer and clock B. We just finished the related equations for when the train is in motion. That details how the trains motion will alter the previous relation. Now we have to account for the trains motion as well as c. Thankfully we just went through that. What this shows is that there are coordinates where an observer will agree on the time where each event occurs at the same time. This is extremely useful. So I'm going to stop here and make sure your good up this point.
  6. Ok it takes a person of strong character to admit being in error and further more wanting to better understand to avoid future errors. So +1 on that. Now we can move onto Relativity of Simultaneity. As Swansont mentioned above its not explicitly shown in the paper. However you can trust me on one detail, its a topic that went through decades of contested debate in numerous papers and methodologies. Time was until then considered absolute. However studies started to show that this wasn't accurate. It wasn't even Einstein that first noticed this. Poincare also made note of it prior to SR. Anyways without going into the history per se. (lol we have numerous forum members far more familiar with the history than I ). It might be best to examine what relativity of simultaneity entails. For this we do not need any eather based theory though Lorentz himself was a supporter of eather. Its an unnecessary complication. Are you in agreement to stick with the moving rods for examination to ensure you understand relativity of simultaneity ? (keep in mind this experiment itself won't show time dilation ) as both observers are moving at the same velocity. Its used in the paper more of a reminder of what classical physics (Galilean relativity would show)
  7. No but I'm glad he didn't draw a Feymann penquin diagram of his wife.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_diagram
  8. One of my past jobs was to test regulated radiation equipment for leakage for the Province I live in. Canucks here. Anyways though the job never entailed testing wifi or Bluetooth devices. Rather it more involved industrial and commercial equipment such as xray machines. I had access to the test equipment so had the curiosity to test the available Bluetooth and wifi devices in the lab. You can barely get a reading, I could get far greater radiation reading from the sun standing outside than I could any Bluetooth or wifi device. Due to tight regulations that typically applied to the industrial, medical and commercial x ray machines. Medical naturally has a higher risk while an image is being taken the exposure time is minimal. Subsequently a far lower risk than standing outside on a sunny day.
  9. Yeah the first descriptive screamed crackpottery. An EMF wave (electromagnetic frequency) with no frequency. It got worse with describing it as a scalar field with propagation greater than c. The whole time travel without space is literal rubbish.
  10. Then its not an electric field either. An electric has known and well understood properties if you change any of those properties its no longer the same field. From what I read though perhaps a terminology change might be order. Perhaps a monopole field though no monopolies have ever been discovered they are still viable. Better yet as it only contains your Ryton particles call it a Ryton field.
  11. Lol he keeps mixing us up. But he doesn't seem to understand how it applies to a vector so I'm seeing if he can get the length of a vector when he is given velocity (v) and the duration of the velocity. (@Logicandreason hint hint) reminder the sl subscript is just an identifier. I posted what the identifier means previous.
  12. Wow ok obviously you have never used vectors before. What determines the length of a vector with velocity as the vector ?
  13. You already know the velocity of Light. You enter it where the c is then multiply that by time to get the interval length. So where is the issue in using that value for a vector ? If you have a velocity and you are graphing that velocity as a vector you require the length of the vector. Knowing the distance travelled by an object in a specified time frame and direction of travel is precisely how you graph a velocity as a vector. Do I assume you have never drawn velocity as a vector ?
  14. You want this again I already did so but whatever. lets go through it again. Lets simplify it however use just one emitter and send the signal bouncing between two mirrors mounted on a moving rod. Forget all about observers we or relativity of simultaneity. mirror A back of the train mirror B front of the train. on a static train entire length of train to truly simplify the math lets say its the time it would take light 1 second to travel on a non moving train. Static velocity=0. now lets say the train travels at a velocity 0.5 c set the train moving from A to C. now send a quick signal pulse from B to A. time for signal to arrive at A from B is 1 second on a non moving train. However the train is moving while the pulse is in flight. It is moving at 0.5 c so the pulse will hit mirror A at 0.5 seconds and not 1 second because mirror A towards the signal while the signal was moving toward mirror A. (C-V) in math speak. 1-0.5=0.5 or more accurately \((ct_{sl}-v)\)where the subscript " sl " denotes the interval length it would have taken on a stationary train CLASSICAL VECTOR ADDITION....Forgot to add we already established the train length being the equivalent of d=1 light second so I simplified
  15. 100 percent correct. That math includes the c-v and c+v relation which you won't grasp how it's being used
  16. If you believe that then why do you struggle so hard with the use of the interval ? You still won't accept c-v and c+v which I further supplied a reference paper (albeit M&M that also tests Lorentz invariance in c) that uses equivalence to a moving rod in the experimental setup. Did you somehow miss that detail ?
  17. It's directly related, you seem to have issues with accepting c as constant regardless of velocity of emitter. Here is a detail your missing here. It is not our job to convince you to believe in SR. Everyone one of us knows that's usually impossible to do with anyone that refuses to accept any theory or model. The onus of evidence or proof that such a well tested theory isn't our responsibility. The onus is on you to show that SR is incorrect in the face of all the evidence showing SR as being correct.
  18. That's quite alright it's an archaic test but it does examine the speed of light in 2 directions and not deviate due to velocity. An old test for Lorentz invariance in the speed of light. Modern tests places Lorentz invariance down to an upper bound for any deviation from constant c at \[0.7*10^{-11}\] for any deviation from c due to motion of the emitter. This upper bound is through a wide range of experiments testing for speed of light deviations. A more well known example being the St-Ives experiment. So if you feel c isn't constant as per SR then you have a huge body of evidence against your belief
  19. One of our rules is that all material pertaining to your theory be posted here as much as feasible. Our members should not need to go to another site to examine your model. Another rule is testable rigor, that will invariably involve the relevant mathematics. Judging from the above I'm going to assume you have little to none in that regard. However just from the above. If Ryton particles has a weak electromagnetic interaction then that would not match observational evidence relevant to dark matter. Your particles would have a tendency to clutter and will not maintain uniform mass distribution due to its charged nature.
  20. you really missed the point I was making with the M and M experiment paper didn't you ? The point I was making was that the same c-v, c+v relation is being used and applied directly under an experimental basis. If that relation was incorrect then the experiment itself would have shown it as being incorrect. Yet you sit there and accuse us of religious convictions. Naturally we will believe observational evidence that shows an equation as being valid. We would be idiots not to. I can literally post dozens of professional peer reviewed articles involving light that will employ precisely the same relation between emitters in motion and static observers that use that same math relation. None of that will make a whoot of difference your mind is set. You will not agree with any of them. So ask yourself this who has the religious like conviction. Us that can recognize experimental evidence that supports an equation. Or yourself that denies the experimentally tested accuracy ? regardless so far the only thing you have proven is that your mind is set and thus a closed book on the subject matter of SR in general. Any effort to show you differently is literally a waste of our time. However just in case lets look at some kinematic on light papers https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/relativity_chap_1.pdf http://web2.ph.utexas.edu/spw/gleeson_071117.pdf https://cas.web.cern.ch/sites/default/files/lectures/chavannes-de-bogis-2013/rel1.pdf Yes these point out the loss of simultaneity we already covered that so no point repeating it. That's where SR steps in with the corrections. Ask yourself the following is it really everyone else in error including the thousands of tests performed, 100's of different studies done by countless different professional physicists in error over the course of over 100 years of intensive studies in numerous different experiments that's all in error Or is is yourself ?
  21. That is a poor way to describe statistical mathematics. In point of detail any probability function has a very useful purpose. That purpose is to provide a full range of possible answers or account for the full possible set of outcomes. Some things in nature (in particular in the quantum regime) cannot be locked down to a single value answer but will have a likely-hood of a range of answers. Lets try an example. lets say your goal is to mathematically predict where a ball will stop and provide the exact location of where the ball will stop when you roll it down a gravel hill. With factors such rocks, gravel amount of initial force delivered to the ball, etc etc. The best you will be able to do is predict a range of possible locations of where that ball will stop you also would only be able to provide a range of possible paths taken by the same ball. Each time you perform the experiment the ball will choose a slightly different path and stop at different locations. this is where probability functions come into play, Another example is the Feymann path integrals, The Euler Langrangian gives the probability of all possible paths. Up to this point mathematically you can only provide a probability of possible outcomes. This is inherent in many classical systems as well as quantum systems. Once you perform the experiment. you have determined the path taken as well as the end point. So that probability function collapses into a determined mathematical state. in entanglement its identical. you do not know which entangled particle you have whether or not its spin up or spin down however you know you have a 50% probability it could be spin up or spin down. So you write that as a probability function. (the entangled superposition state). Once you measure the particle you know you have a spin up, and the other particle must be spin down. the probability function is no longer needed as you have measured a determined state.
  22. Sigh lets try a different angle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelson-morley_calculations.svg see image here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment its in essence the same mathematics same relation you can see the image and how v-c and v+c is applied
  23. photon propogator \[\frac{i}{k^2}[-g^{\mu\nu}+(1-\zeta)\frac{k^\mu k\nu}{k^2}]\] in Feymann gauge \(\zeta=1\) gives \[-\frac{i}{k^2}g^{\mu\nu}\] polarization states of photon \[\epsilon_1=\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}\] \[\epsilon_2=\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\1\\0\end{pmatrix}\] normalization given by \(\epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2=g^{\mu\nu}\) Electron/positron propogator \[\frac{i(\gamma^\mu q_\mu+m)}{q^2-m^2}\] delta function \((2\pi)^4\varphi ( p_1-p_2-q)\)
  24. why would you believe the rod is not moving when it shows it directly in the math you just posted ? What do you think the v-c and v+c is all about. I even spent time telling you this yesterday. The rod length is static does not mean the rod isn't moving. The static implies what is now called Born rigidity. In other words he isn't applying the SR Lorentz contraction at this stage. At this stage he is directly examining Classical physics. You don't seem to get that/ \(Observer A (train direction given by- V)\longrightarrow Observer B\) does that help ?
  25. You only get banned for violations of the Site rules. If a thread in speculations does not meet the requirements in the links I posted on page one. The thread gets locked. That is not the same as being banned.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.