Jump to content

Light Time Clock


Masanov
 Share

Recommended Posts

Light Time Clock

The mirror tube with the light pulse inside is a simple Light Time Clock. The speed of the light pulse inside is C* cos alpha {alpha is angle to the mirror surface}. One can divide the tube in 20 scales.

When light pulse in frames S’ comes close to the exit of the tube, it could be 20 seconds… Then in frames S the light pulse in the tube S also will have 20 seconds measurement, because postulates demand absolute speed to be constant. So along the orange distance we see relative speed of the light pulse S’ for the time 20 seconds, measured in both tubes, or Light Time Clocks.

 

image001.png

 

To say that time of the orange distance is bigger than in both tubes is nonsence, because Light Time Clocks cannot measure times bigger or smaller than the time that have been already measured. The orange distance was passed by the light at time t measured by both tubes with some relative speed. With other incline of the tube S’ we receive another relative orange distance and another relative speed at time t. New incline of the tube S’ cannot change measurement of time in S and S’.

In the theory of relativity new incline of the tube changes time of the orange distance. More over, the time of the orange distance is prescribed to the observer of S as if his age is measured by this time. So, if we have a lot of orange distances, we have a lot of times that can be prescribed simultaneously to the observer S. If an observer sees two orange distances simultaneously (if he is cross-eyed) he can have two times prescribed by A.Einstein. These strange Einstein times exist simultaneously with the time t, measured by both tubes S and S’, and cannot be measured by devices, they can be only calculated. So no experiments checking the theory of relativity can be made, and never been made honestly without tricks.

So, the only experiment, proving that times of the orange distance cannot be measured and is fake, is to measure time of the orange distance by both tubes with several inclines. Be sure this time wiil be equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

IOW, you don't understand relativity. It apparently doesn't "make sense" to you. But don't mistake that with a refutation.

 

You need to come up with an actual experiment that can be done, and predict the outcome. The problem being that thus far, they all support relativity. Bummer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not this garbage again.

 

"The speed of the light pulse inside is C* cos alpha {alpha is angle to the mirror surface}"

 

No, the speed of light is c. Always.

 

"So no experiments checking the theory of relativity can be made, and never been made honestly without tricks."

 

Yeah, I guess I'll take your word for it, instead of every physicist in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IOW' date=' you don't understand relativity. It apparently doesn't "make sense" to you. But don't mistake that with a refutation.

[/quote']

Maybe there should be another forum topic "Relativity - I don't understand it, so it must be wrong" you could put a lot of posts in there:D

 

Masanov - if you want people to take you seriously don't post comments like "So no experiments checking the theory of relativity can be made" Many have!

 

I want to try and understand what you are on about here, can you explain your diagram a little better, it is very unclear what it is you are proposing.

 

e.g. do you mean that there are 2 identical mirror tubes, one at rest WRT the observer and the other moving WRT the observer?

Are you proposing that the observer calculate the time it takes for the light to exit the 2 tubes?

 

If so I think that you will find that the observer will see the light exit the tube S' in a shorter time that it would exit tube S i.e. the light travels at the same speed in both tubes but the observer sees tube S' as shorter than tube S. I know it does not make sense but relativity is not about common sense.

I feel a space time diagram coming on, maybe I will post one if Masanov agrees that the above two points are what he means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light Time Clock has a ruler on a tube. Light shot strictly perpendicular inside the mirror tube will not move to the exits. Guys who do not believe that light can move 1 cm per second, simply cannot believe in the C*cos alpha. Alpha is the angle of the light speed to the mirror surface, acc. to postulates the angle also should be taken into account when judging the constancy of the light speed, analyzed by observers. So, as we have Light Time Clocks in both frames S and S', the observer of S' can see his Clock and also the Clock S. Only one light pulse was shot in Clock S and also in Clock S'. On exit the light pulse S' will show 20 seconds total time. The same time the light pulse S will show on exit from the tube S. Why? Because of postulates, demanding the speed C and cos alpha be unchanged. There should be the ruler, and the ruler should prove the above said. Providing that tubes are the same in production.

 

If Light Time Clock is made, it will not depend of observers, and will show common for all inertial systems time.in previous discussions we stated that theoretically there can be three times observed by one observer. Just judge in the animation three different distances, passed by light.

S':angleanim2.gif S:angleanim1.gif

Light Time Clock will show only ONE time, not three or million times, only one time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your diagrams prove relativity, just so you know

 

 

that is what relativity predicts

 

the speed of light is constant no matter what reference frame you in

 

 

its time that changes

 

 

 

the reason this works is because in your experiment (I just looked at your diagrams) if you presume that the apparatus is moving as in the second diagram. and you were inside of it you would conclude that the light completed its journey in t seconds. as an outside observer I notice that light travels a larger distance (diargram 2) in the same time t.

 

from this the simplest explanation would be that time slows down as one moves through space at a certain velocity.

 

you can derive the time dilation formula from your design by just presuming that velocity of light is constant and that time is moving at a different rate inside the clock at speed (forgot if you have to presume this or not)

 

 

Now, the reason we ca postulate that the speed of light is constant in a hypothetical experiment and declare that special relativity is correct is because all of the equations had already been made by Lorenz (I believe it was him) and derived from maxwells equations. Einstein just showed why they were the way they were, (time dilation)

 

Now if you try to go poking holes in special relativity you really do need to go look at electrodynamics as well, because I don't believe that ether theory can explain magnetism as perfectly as relativity can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animation of spheres S and S' discussed in RR thread. Hold everything.

The speed of light in the Light Time Clock in all inertial systems is the same [C*cos alpha], this means that all inertial systems have one equal time!

Michelson and Morley experiment helped greatly. More to it, the Postulates demand

that the speed of light C and the vector [cos alpha] be observed as unchanged

in all inertial systems! Remember: C* cos alpha is the speed of light in the mirror tube of LTC, which has a ruler of time on its surface (longitudinally). Angle Alpha should be a little smaller than 90 degrees so that LIGHT could go from entrance to the exit of LTC with the small speed (1 cm per second).

- It is possible, judging from V1-v2/c2 and experiment with parallel mirrors of Einstein.

 

If LTC is 1 m long, then the time of light from its entrance to exit is 100 seconds. In all inertial systems light in LTC light with the speed 1 cm per second will go this distance for 100 seconds (See Michelson and Morley experiment for reference, Swansont:no need to repeat experiments).

 

info about the mirror tube of LTC - see here http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/...

 

Next animation. In this animation of S and S' ...

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(7).htm

LTC proves that two light pulses S and S' along the blue distance passed different distances!!!! We have along the blue direction two different speeds of light pulses: different distances for one LTC time. Along the blue distance we do not see different LTC times, we see different speeds of light pulses. So if you want to say that these relative speeds of light pulses are hidden relative times, it is as simple as that, just use the formula: T'/T=C'/C [relative speed/absolute speed], or knowing that C'/C=V1-v2/c2!, go next...to your paradoxes. But these relative times will differ from each other by angles the light pulses will be observed and they will exist together with LTC time! This is the main paradox: your relative times - alongside with LTC time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

']Not this garbage again.

"The speed of the light pulse inside is C* cos alpha {alpha is angle to the mirror surface}"

No' date=' the speed of light is c. Always.

[/quote']

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/9

Inside Einstein parallel mirrors light pulse could move together with parallel mirrors. And this movement is speed C*cos alpha or V in V1-v2/c2.

 

So, if we prolong Einstein mirrors, we shall receive LTC.

 

If Einstein mirrors moved 1 cm per second than angle alpha would be little less than 90 degrees.

It is not a garbage, it's Einstein.

 

And LTC is only a little bit differs from famous parallel mirrors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no because the relative times are only observed by an outside observer. if your in the clock then it all happens like the diagram in S

 

 

furthermore masanov why did you use such a complicated example, your light time clock appears to be a far more complicated version of the one used in most derivations of SR. If something works in a simple version of the experiment it will most certainly work for a more complicated version of the same experiment. Just with a few more terms in the equations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 identical mirror tubes' date=' one at rest WRT the observer and the other moving WRT the observer? [b']YES[/b]

Are you proposing that the observer calculate the time it takes for the light to exit the 2 tubes?YES

If so I think that you will find that the observer will see the light exit the tube S' in a shorter time that it would exit tube S i.e. the light travels at the same speed in both tubes but the observer sees tube S' as shorter than tube S. I know it does not make sense but relativity is not about common sense.

Thank you for the help!

In another diagrams about three light pulses of S on three different relative distances seen by the observer S is clear that we have 3 different times, proven by Swansont and others, and me too.

So, LTC will show none of these times. So, if you want to imagine larger the tube, it will not help. LTC does not show relative times.

Relative times can coexist with LTC time, because they are hidden relative speeds: in the formula T'/T=C'/C it is as clear as... C' is SQR(C2-V2) and is relative speed. And LTC time is T=C'/CT' in all inertial systems.

So, why and for what play with T'? This time T' cannot experimentally be proven, only calculated after we measure T, C' and C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no because the relative times are only observed by an outside observer. if your in the clock then it all happens like the diagram in S

Animation

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(7).htm

Just pay attention to the fact mentioned by me several times

we see and the observer S sees two light pulses of S and S'

during LTC time/ These light pulses clearly enough pass different distances/ So thay have different speed' date=' not times.[/b']

Relative times are calculations not a reality.

Reality is relative speeds.

In Einstein formula T'/T=C'/C it is clear enough, that "discovered" by Einstein time is a substitution to C'. So, as many relative speeds we have, as many light pulses we observe, so such many times we have. Garbage, but I do not eat it. I believe in one time - LTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

where are you getting this formula T'/T=C'/C?

 

V= dx/dt changing the definition of time will necessarily affect the speed, Changing the time is the most logical way of correcting everything though. Also, it is a well documented fact that clocks on airplanes or space craft run slower than our clocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

where are you getting this formula T'/T=C'/C?

C' is sqr(c2-v2)

a well documented expression meaning relative speed.

...well documented fact

Even if in a spaceship LTC showed different time, it would be not relative.

Maybe cos alpha changed, may be accelaration influenced.

By the way, do you think an article in a newspaper is a well-documented case? MM experiment showed and other experiments prove that light inside LTC should be constant, so pilots are not the proof.

Sometimes pilots see visitors from Mars and other planes, and their meeting with marsians is also a well-documented case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no these were carefully caried out scientific experiments involving atomic clocks

 

 

also I have never seen that expression and it sounds almost like your trying to use it for a relative speed of light, could you please find a reference for this somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the latex, I have a hard time seeing mathmatical relations otherwise

 

however why not just say that (lorentz factor) = (lorentz factor), which is basicly what your saying.

 

now, the predictions of SR are readily observable, this includes time dilation. Why are you complaining that it isn't real? Einstein just quantified the observable phenomenon

 

Also, if you want an easy experiment to show that time dilation works, take two magnets and stick them together (its easier to understand the concept with electromagnets, but anywho) magnetism or electrodynamics is a prediction of SR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what he is saying is that time dilation isn't necessary to preserve the Lorentz transform. And he is right in this. For instance, you can derive the Lorentz transform straight from the Coulomb and Biot-Savart Laws without Special Relativity.

 

Lorentz Transform Derivation (Select Physics button)

 

But this way of deriving Lorentz won't give the correct formula for Cherenkov radiation and the Special Theory of Relativity is able to give the correct result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its possible to derive the lorentz contraction formula from the michelson and morley experiment. Thats how lorentz got it, but the equtation is a worthless group of terms without SR. Also I don't believe electrodynamics works without time dilation.

 

Furthermore, time dilation has been observed in atomic clocks that have been placed on space craft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference between saying that processes like atomic clocks slow down, or observed rates of change are compressed, and saying there is no such thing as Absolute Time or Proper Time, or saying that Time itself is flexible or distortable in the sense of say a Riemannian manifold.

 

These are philosophical issues of the validity, interpretation and the meaning and implications of physical theories. And they must be kept separate from the question of the accuracy, usefulness, and practical formulation of the same theories.

 

The question of the truth of Special Relativity or the interpretation of its formalism is the branch called appropriately, metaphysics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference between saying that processes like atomic clocks slow down, or observed rates of change are compressed, and saying there is no such thing as Absolute Time or Proper Time, or saying that Time itself is flexible or distortable in the sense of say a Riemannian manifold.

 

These are philosophical issues of the validity, interpretation and the meaning and implications of physical theories. And they must be kept separate from the question of the accuracy, usefulness, and practical formulation of the same theories.

 

The question of the truth of Special Relativity or the interpretation of its formalism is the branch called appropriately, metaphysics.

 

the question of the validity of any theory is not in the realm of metaphysics.

 

that being said time dilation is readily observable. It conforms to what special relativity predicts. It does not matter if SR is not the final truth. It is still the only explanation that works at this point, and it is pointless to try and refute this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masanov, since you posted length contraction formula let’s use it to see how long it would take for light to exit tube S’

 

No playing with t' at all.

 

From your first post - the time it takes for light to exit the tube = 20s

Let’s make the other measurements simple

Length of light tube = 1m

Progress of light along the tube = 1/20 = 0.05 m/s

c = 300000000 m/s

Lets say that S’ is travelling at 0.5c WRT the observer

 

Length contraction formula

[imath]

L= L_{0}\sqrt{1 -\frac{v^2}{c^2}}

[/imath]

 

Plug in the values

[imath]

L= 1\sqrt{1 -\frac{150000000^2}{300000000^2}}

[/imath]

 

Result

[imath]

L= 0.87m

[/imath]

 

Time taken for light to travel up the length contracted tube at 0.05m/s

[imath]

t = \frac {0.87}{0.05}

[/imath]

 

Result

[imath]

t= 17.40s

[/imath]

 

That was easier then I expected, it's a long time since I did any math homework.

 

Anyone that sees any errors please post corrections

 

Masanov - Now explain how an observer travelling with the tube S' (let's call him O') calculates the time of the light progressing up the tube to be 20s without playing with t' if the length of the tube to O' is 1m and the speed of light is c. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its possible to derive the lorentz contraction formula from the michelson and morley experiment. Thats how lorentz got it' date=' but the equtation is a worthless group of terms without SR. .....[b']REALLY[/b]

For what do you suffer hard, take equation from Newton by adding vectors of C and V to receive relative speed of one light pulse. Relative speed is C*Sin alpha, V is the speed of the observer which is C*cos alpha. So sin alpha is this equation. But only if the observer observes the light pulse at 90 degrees to the direction it moves.

Furthermore, time dilation has been observed in atomic clocks that have been placed on space craft

Call the reference pls. It's not true. If you place LTC into that spaceship, according to postulates C and cos alpha [as vector of speed] will remain the same in all inertial systems. So, your saying is a scientific lie, not investigated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

time dilation is readily observable.

Scotland Yard tries to observe relative time

Newton "filed a suit for great moral losses" from freuders. Relative times are SEEN or CALCULATED?

LTC, based on MM experiment and postulates, should show in all inertial systems equal times, or time. If in all inertial systems time is equal, then it is absolute. TIME IS ABSOLUTE [deducing from all inertial systems].

 

If we experiment with million light pulses shot both in S and S' frames,

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(9).htm

LTC in the frame S will fix equal distances to light pulses in S and relative different distances from the centre of S to light pulses in S'.

 

This means that light pulses of S' go along these different relative distances with different relative speeds, during LTC time in S.

 

[Excessive] demands of Einstein need these different distances be divided in C, to receive different relative times, not SEEN in any clocks, but calculated.

 

You divide the distance, passed for common LTC time, in C to receive different relative time.[not seen, but calculated]

 

So, if LTC time can be seen, relative times cannot be seen, but can be

calculated, e.g. by Scotlandyard observers.

 

So, if we invite some Scotlandyard observers and ask them to check

relative times on their visibility, none of the relative times would be seen.

Only LTC time could be seen.

 

If relative times cannot be seen, then no experiments can be made.

Calculations are just calculations, not experiments. Observers, seeing different relative times, do not see them.

 

If, e.g. LTC time in frames S' is 100 seconds, and observed in S

LTC time is 50 seconds, it means that the observer is not from Scotlandyard

and violates postulates, demanding that light in LTC tubes of all inertial

systems move with equal speed.

 

You see the light pulse on the exit of the tube in S and S'. If you contract the distance passed with absolute speed, then you contract the speed proportionately, so that the light pulse got to the exit on time of LTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call the reference pls. It's not true. If you place LTC into that spaceship' date=' according to postulates C and cos alpha [as vector of speed'] will remain the same in all inertial systems. So, your saying is a scientific lie, not investigated.

 

He didn't say it was a light clock, he said atomic clock. They are on GPS satellites, as well as many others, and they confirm relativity continually.

 

I suggest you be more careful in calling statements "lies"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masanov' date=' since you posted length contraction formula let’s use it to see how long it would take for light to exit tube S’

[/quote']

First, it's not length contraction, it's relative speed formula TAIL,

meaning sin alpha for Einstein famous mirror experiment.

 

Second, LTC in frames S fixes million different distances of million light pulses of S'[experiments mentioned just above]. Now to divide these distances by C, and receive million times is the logic discussed. Not your logic from the reverse side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • 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.