Jump to content

DanMP

Senior Members
  • Posts

    346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DanMP

  1. English is not my first language. I meant "in a similar way as in #12", not identical. You will see.
  2. I don't need to. I calculate time intervals as in #12. You mean how "Sagnac in free space" is relevant for "a better understanding on how light travels through transparent materials"? Materials are made of atoms. The atomic nucleus is very very small compared to the size of the atom. The electrons in the atom are even smaller. So, it is plenty of "free space" inside an atom. Therefore, any material on Earth consists mainly on "free space" At least half of Sagnac in materials calculation is "Sagnac in free space" calculation. I will post it (+ Fizeau), but not today. I need some time to figure out how to insert it here (few pages with equations and images). I also have to make a "forum version" from my 2 versions. This may take some time, and I don't have very much for forum activities. Please be pacient.
  3. Are you sure that we would get the same signal from the merging BH, no matter if we are in their orbital plane or perpendicular to it? How it was in the actual/recorded case?
  4. As far as I understood, the gravitational waves detected were from 2 black holes that merged. My question is: the waves were emitted/detectable in all directions, including straight up/down from the orbital plane?
  5. Ok, it seems that we both misunderstood. I believed that you consider the Sagnac effect in vacuum explanation relativistic just because it relies on the fact that the speed of light in vacuum in the lab is c. [in fact you wrote (#27): "any calculation that relies on c being invariant is a relativistic calculation, as that is a postulate of special relativity".] That's why I tried to explain that the fact that the speed of light in vacuum in the lab is c, is not necessarily from relativity, not a relativistic calculation, but a result of experiments and of Maxwell equations, and that the explanation does not use the fact that c is constant in all inertial frames. You, on the other hand, believed that I rely on aether, although I wrote many times that I'm not, that I know that the speed of light in vacuum in the real lab is c due to relativity (that's why I proposed to use non-Lorentzian instead of non-relativistic). You seem to ignore that and for some reason wrote the stupid (sorry) conclusion below: So, again, forget aether! My point is that we can have good non-Lorentzian explanations for Fizeau and Sagnac. And if we can, we should be interested in such an explanation for a better understanding on how light travels through transparent materials. Do you understand/agree now?
  6. Non-Lorentzian means that it not uses Lorentz transformation, as in Sagnac effect in vacuum. Yes, but the water/cable moves. Mordred, to understand "my postulate" you have to go back in the linked thread, or to wait until I decide to post the full "story". I'm not sure that I will post it in "scienceforums.net", since I didn't get any positive feedback in a month, and in this thread I had to explain again and again the same thing and no one seem to understand, care or agree with anything.
  7. Ok, then again, non-Lorentzian, not non-relativistic, although the fact that the speed of light in vacuum in one frame is c, is not due to a relativistic calculation. If you want a calculation for it, then why not Maxwell calculation? And forget aether. It's not about aether vs.relativity. It's about the fact that a calculation is not relativistic only because it uses c as the speed of light in vacuum in the lab frame. It agrees with relativity but is not a relativistic calculation!
  8. If this is your answer, it's not very clear, that's why I asked again. Anyway, if you think it is possible, why are you not interested in such a theory? It may offer a better explanation on how light travels through transparent materials. Or it can test current theories (on how light travels through transparent materials) ... Who said I don't have experiments able to prove my theory? See here. There are more. Why exactly?
  9. So, instead of using QM/QPh or my simple explanation (see here), I may write a postulate stating something like that: "All our instruments are made of atoms, and they compensate any apparent change in light/interaction speed, giving the same result for the speed of light in vacuum: c ". This would cover also the other Einstein postulate, because all the atoms in the same frame are affected in the same way, so they will not notice any difference within the frame. Time dilation, length contraction, etc. affect all the atoms in the frame in the same way. (Now you have the reason why - and you can understand how - "time" affects everything in a frame, not only clocks, you can see beyond mathematics). And Mordred, my postulate being in agreement with Einstein's postulates, the maths may remain the same, giving the same validity to such a theory. Do you agree? So Swansont, after 37 posts, you agree at least that it is possible to have a non-relativistic explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac?
  10. I wrote from the very beginning (and repeated many many times): I also wrote: You never agreed. You said: I replied: You never answered. Please answer. I also need an answer to this:
  11. Ok, Fizeau in one frame was not posted (yet), so please refer to Sagnac explanation in vacuum posted by imatfaal.
  12. Did you read this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93360-simple-explanation-for-time-dilation/page-1#entry903983 ? Read from here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93360-simple-explanation-for-time-dilation/page-5#entry906396
  13. First, the invariance of c is not a product of relativity. It was postulated based on experimental results. Confirmed, yes, but not the result of a relativistic (or any) calculation. Lorentz transformations (used to explain Fizeau & Sagnac) are actively based on the above mentioned postulate, because 2 frames with the same speed for light in vacuum, c, are considered (in Fizeau exp.: the lab frame and the moving water frame). So here we do have a relativistic calculation. If we consider only the lab frame, we don't really use the postulate that claim: "The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.". We use only the fact, proved experimentally, that in the lab frame the speed of light in vacuum is c, in all directions. The lab may be in a special/preferred frame. The result is the same. So, this is not a relativistic calculation. As I said, I know that the lab frame is not special, and the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference, but the explanation/calculation doesn't use/need that, so it is not a relativistic calculation. To be entirely correct we can call it non-Lorentzian, as I proposed above. By the way, how many theories based on postulates do we have? Are you happy with this kind of "solving" things?
  14. My claim is not arbitrarily. It is based on the fact that we don't know any exception (big differences for v<<c and no GR effects) and, more important, on the fact that we have an excellent non-relativistic explanation for Sagnac effect in vacuum. You really think that for n>1 everything changes and a non-relativistic (non-Lorentzian) explanation is impossible? This is a good point That's why I wrote "almost": On the other hand, the fact that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, c, in one place (the lab) is not exclusively from relativity. It may be true also for aether theories. So, a theory based only on that is not necessarily "a relativistic calculation". However, I know that the constancy of c in our real lab is due to relativity, so let's use non-Lorentzian instead of non-relativistic.
  15. I used underline and bold for you to see that basically you are saying the same as I said. Now you agree? Anybody else? Please help us here to get over it.
  16. For the car going 100km/h we do have a pretty good non-relativistic model/result. We need to get to page 3 until you admit it?
  17. Where? If you know examples, other than Fizeau exp. and Sagnac effect in materials (n>1), where, with v<<c and no GR effects, we have only a relativistic explanation for a result, please provide them. Sorry for the "shot". Your mistakes were indeed small, but I was bothered by the fact that you didn't acknowledged the second one, the one where you considered I made a humongous mistake, when in fact what I claimed was correct: all inertial frames/observers agree with the differences between H-K exp. clocks. My Fizeau/Sagnac solution includes maths and agrees with the relativistic ones. Still, I'm pretty sure that you will be not satisfied or interested ... You prefer to remain ignorant about how light really travels trough transparent materials (and many more).
  18. You never agreed with so it appears that you consider Fizeau & Sagnac entirely relativistic. If you do, please explain how imatfaal solution is entirely relativistic. If you don't, please agree with my statement above, statement that implies that we should have a (complete, better) non-relativistic explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac. This is post #19. How many more do you need to agree with that or anything from me?
  19. Do we have an explanation for them? There is a different thread about it?
  20. imatfaal posted here a non-relativistic explanation for Sagnac effect. It is incorrect (he lost an r; typical for imatfaal) and the same thing I mentioned above it 3 times, but the point is that it shows that a non-relativistic solution is possible. You insisted that Sagnac effect is relativistic. I said: You never agreed to that, so please agree or explain how imatfaal solution is entirely relativistic.
  21. swansont, you wrote some things to consider. Between them there is: 6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it. You don't have to observe this rule?
  22. Based on what? You know how much of the Universe "became" "dark" 100 years after Einstein's relativity? Considering this, you shouldn't be so sure. We all should be humble and open minded, not over-confident in old theories ... And a new theory must agree with the old one findings. Check my edited message above to see that mine does ...
  23. I thought again about it and realized that the START photo/moment is seen also differently from your spaceship/train and the differences you mention are not only very small but also cancelled out from START to STOP, leaving the differences between the H-K clocks the same for all inertial frame/observers. Am I right? I said I want to lead you towards a simple/physical explanation for time dilation in matter, not that I will give you a complete answer. For me it's important here just to see if you are interested to pursue this idea, if you find it as interesting as the people that awarded Ryan's idea did. Only if you are, I will post my "pet theory". You have to admit that something must happen in atoms when force transmitting particles appear to move slower. The way to determine exactly what happens is by using quantum physics, not relativity, because QPh is the theory that describe the atom. Change the speed of light/interactions from c to a fraction of c, Fc, and see what happens with the energy levels in atoms. If energy levels in atoms change, than the interval for the "hyperfine transition" also changes, meaning that the frequency you measure in the atomic clock changes ... Calculate this and you will have the time dilation. Then apply it to see how this "modified" atomic clock would see the speed of light. I'm confident that you will get again c, not Fc. In my theory I used an over-simplified, almost naive, but logical approach and I obtained the fact that the speed of light in meters per second is always c, even it appears to change. Al our instruments are made of atoms, and they compensate any apparent change in light/interaction speed. This finding is in agreement with Einstein's relativity, so the maths may remain the same. Only the understanding changes (and much more than that, as you may see in my theory if you give me a pozitive feedback).
  24. Ok than, let the STOP moment be a real stop, meaning that the man in the lab stops the clocks by pushing one button, "freezing" the displays. So, between START and STOP, 3 photons, one for each light clock, flew between mirrors with the same speed c, same time (different observers will not agree about the value, but will agree that the time was the same, between the START and STOP, for all clocks/photons) but completed different number of cycles. That can be explained by longer routes/paths taken by each photon (the "saw teeth" for kinematic time dilation and spacetime warping for gravitational time dilation). And this time, all the observers agree with the differences in path between the 3 clocks. We can mimic the result of the experiment by building light clocks with different distances between mirrors and keeping all on the same table, near the first one. We can adjust the distances until we get exact the same result. Or, we can keep the distance between mirrors identical and "adjust" (it is a thought experiment) the speed of 2 photons, until we get the same result. Now, consider that one mirror of a light clock is the nucleus of an atom and the other one electron in its cloud, and that electromagnetic force is considered to be transmitted through virtual particles travelling exactly like photons (same speed/path). In my opinion the change in path observed in light-clock photons translates in similar changes in paths for force transmitting particles between different elements of the atom, and this is what cause the time dilation in atoms, not the mathematics, not the frames. In order to verify this assumption, just calculate what a change in electromagnetic interraction speed does in an atom used in a real, atomic, clock. See how energy levels change ... an how the frequency you use to measure time (in atomic clocks) changes. I wrote this in a hurry, because I'm busy and forced by the moderator to do it now or never, so I'm sure you will have a great laught, but do the maths first and that laugh. This is not my "pet theory"! Just an idea from it, similar with Ryan's rewarded idea. My theory is much more than that.
  25. Nothing changes between the "border" and the surface of the Earth. No more/less shift. Using spectroscopic measurements, as usual.
×
×
  • 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.