SR and c measurement

[vuquta]

Hi,

 

I seem to have a condition in which SR measure two different values for c.

 

Since the math is somewhat long, I've put it to a pdf file here.

 

If you find any logic or SR errors, please feel free to point them out.

 

 

Thanks in advance.

[swansont]

You said "measure" but I see no measurements.

 

Special relativity is based on Lorentz transformations. They can be inverted, to get you from one frame to another and back again. If you have found an inconsistency, it is because you have made a math error.

[vuquta]

You said "measure" but I see no measurements.

 

Special relativity is based on Lorentz transformations. They can be inverted, to get you from one frame to another and back again. If you have found an inconsistency, it is because you have made a math error.

 

I posted a clear and concise measurement in the pdf file as well the use of LT for translatiing coordinates into the stationary system of coordinates.

[swansont]

No, you did a calculation. A measurement is from an actual physical experiment, not a thought experiment. Only an experimental result can prove relativity false.

 

You have a postulate that c is a constant, and you have math. The result is SR, which is an internally consistent construct. What you are doing is the equivalent of those 1=2 "proofs" that have a subtle (or not so subtle) mistake in them, usually where you divide by zero. Since algebra works, one can conclude that you have misapplied SR at some point or made a math error.

[vuquta]

No, you did a calculation. A measurement is from an actual physical experiment, not a thought experiment. Only an experimental result can prove relativity false.

 

You have a postulate that c is a constant, and you have math. The result is SR, which is an internally consistent construct. What you are doing is the equivalent of those 1=2 "proofs" that have a subtle (or not so subtle) mistake in them, usually where you divide by zero. Since algebra works, one can conclude that you have misapplied SR at some point or made a math error.

 

Well, I assumed SR is true. Under that assumption, I come up with 2 different measurements for the speed of light.

 

Further, I have used that light always emits c. I demarcate that with the measurement of c. When I do, and use the correct point, I find that SR must measure two different values for c when it always emits c.

 

So, my proof does not waste its time on dividing by zero, since that would be stupid.

 

It simply forces that light always emits at c and is always measured c into a contradiction.

 

You will note I am using very specific terms.

[swansont]

Well, I assumed SR is true. Under that assumption, I come up with 2 different measurements for the speed of light.

 

Further, I have used that light always emits c. I demarcate that with the measurement of c. When I do, and use the correct point, I find that SR must measure two different values for c when it always emits c.

 

So, my proof does not waste its time on dividing by zero, since that would be stupid.

 

It simply forces that light always emits at c and is always measured c into a contradiction.

 

You will note I am using very specific terms.

 

And the only way to come to a contradiction when applying algebra is to do the algebra wrong.

[vuquta]

And the only way to come to a contradiction when applying algebra is to do the algebra wrong.

 

This is speculation.

 

I am sure you can point out, given the very specific math in my link, where this applies.

 

Why don't we debate that?

[swansont]

This is speculation.

 

No, not really. If math were not internally consistent, what would be the utility of it? You could get two different answers by using two different methods of solution.

 

I am sure you can point out, given the very specific math in my link, where this applies.

 

Why don't we debate that?

 

If I have time, perhaps. But you would probably learn more finding your own mistake(s).

[vuquta]

No, not really. If math were not internally consistent, what would be the utility of it? You could get two different answers by using two different methods of solution.

 

I only use LT and a specific point in the space of the stationary frame.

In addition, I use this same -point in a moving frame. The results are interesting.

 

If I have time, perhaps. But you would probably learn more finding your own mistake(s).

 

Thanks, no rush.

Please ask any question on the setup to shorten your time.

 

But, I really do not believe I made any mistakes.

 

In general, I use the point

 

x = λvt/ (1 + λ)

 

You will note, using LT, t'=t for all t and x' = -x. This is the key.

 

By using the correct setup, I can then map from the moving frame into the stationary frame.

 

By doing this, with t=t', I can then compare light travel on a contracted length from the moving frame vs light travel on a stationary length using the same rest distance all in the coordinates of the stationary frame.

 

Since t'=t for the light travel and the light path lengths are different, then there is no choice but to conclude light speed is measured at different values.

 

However, this assumes light is always emitted c regardless of any motion.

 

But, this is experimentally verified by Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources

[michel123456]

I only use LT and a specific point in the space of the stationary frame.

In addition, I use this same -point in a moving frame. The results are interesting.

 

 

 

Thanks, no rush.

Please ask any question on the setup to shorten your time.

 

But, I really do not believe I made any mistakes.

 

In general, I use the point

 

x = λvt/ (1 + λ)

 

You will note, using LT, t'=t for all t and x' = -x. This is the key.

 

By using the correct setup, I can then map from the moving frame into the stationary frame.

 

By doing this, with t=t', I can then compare light travel on a contracted length from the moving frame vs light travel on a stationary length using the same rest distance all in the coordinates of the stationary frame.

 

Since t'=t for the light travel and the light path lengths are different, then there is no choice but to conclude light speed is measured at different values.

 

However, this assumes light is always emitted c regardless of any motion.

 

But, this is experimentally verified by Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources

 

Look there.

And also when you pose :"By the Pythagorean theorem," in your pdf. That is maybe the contradiction with t'=t. With the Pythagorean theorem you use Newtonian mechanics. IMO.

Edited December 30, 2009 by michel123456

[vuquta]

Look there.

And also when you pose :"By the Pythagorean theorem," in your pdf. That is maybe the contradiction with t'=t. With the Pythagorean theorem you use Newtonian mechanics. IMO.

 

1) The path lengths for light travel are different with t'=t.

 

2) I mapped all coords from the moving frame into the stationary frame using LT. So, I can apply Newtonian mechanics and the Pythagorean theorem.

Here is why.

 

Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system.''

 

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[michel123456]

There MUST be some mistake somewhere, as Swanson said. I figure it is not in the mathematics, it is in the logic.

I am not really sure of what is going on, I didn't go into all your calculations, but it seems weird to me to obtain a triangle & straight lines after having "mapped all coords from the moving frame into the stationary frame"

 

I can't help further.

[vuquta]

There MUST be some mistake somewhere, as Swanson said. I figure it is not in the mathematics, it is in the logic.

I am not really sure of what is going on, I didn't go into all your calculations, but it seems weird to me to obtain a triangle & straight lines after having "mapped all coords from the moving frame into the stationary frame"

 

I can't help further.

 

Agreed, it looks and feels weird to me also.

 

Thanks, and have a good one.

[swansont]

1) The path lengths for light travel are different with t'=t.

 

Why have you assumed t' = t?

[vuquta]

Why have you assumed t' = t?

 

I did not.

By setting x = λvt/ (1 + λ),

 

then plug it in to LT.

 

t' = λ( t - vx/c²).

 

After simplification, t' = t.

[vuquta]

Yea, folks say this all the time. I am upgrading this post based on a previous post and new findings. The prior post of mine could not be refuted.

 

The link below will provide a specific point in the stationary system of coordinates.

 

With this point, it will be shown the Lorentzian Transformations map one light sphere in the stationary frame into a completely different light sphere in the moving frame. Both light spheres are mapped into the stationary system of coordinates to demonstrate their uniqueness.

 

Naturally, this arrives at a physical contradiction since one light flash cannot reside in two two different origins of the same space.

 

PDF Link

[swansont]

No need to start a new thread on this, so I've merged them

 

"Physical" implies an actual experiment, not a thought experiment. You can't say there is a physical contradiction if you haven't done an experiment. What you have is a mathematical contradiction. You have either misapplied the assumptions of SR (or made some other assumption) or made math a mistake.

 

I'm not understanding your choice of coordinate for x (and what is x_break?), why it depends on speed, and why you claim that x' = -x.

 

x can't depend on the speed of O'

[vuquta]

No need to start a new thread on this, so I've merged them

 

"Physical" implies an actual experiment, not a thought experiment. You can't say there is a physical contradiction if you haven't done an experiment. What you have is a mathematical contradiction. You have either misapplied the assumptions of SR (or made some other assumption) or made math a mistake.

 

I'm not understanding your choice of coordinate for x (and what is x_break?), why it depends on speed, and why you claim that x' = -x.

 

x can't depend on the speed of O'

 

1) What you have is a mathematical contradiction. You have either misapplied the assumptions of SR (or made some other assumption) or made math a mistake.

 

Here was my objective.

 

I have two rigid body spheres in relative motion. The moving sphere contains a light source.

When their origins are coincident, the light is flashed.

 

SR makes the following statements.

1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously.

2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously.

3) Neither sees the others strikes as simultaneous.

 

Now, a question should be asked. If the sphere points in the moving frame are struck simultaneously, when in the the time coordinates of the stationary frame, does this occur?

 

SR provides no such tools. So I invented one.

 

The point I found is on both rigid body spheres when it is struck by the light. Since t' = t, ct = r and ct' = r at the point, as shown in the paper, then we may conclude all the sphere points of the moving sphere are struck at t = r/c in the stationary system of coords.

 

Now, since the origin of the moving sphere is located at vt at any time t, then the origin of the light sphere in the moving body sphere is located at vt = v(r/c) or ( v(r/c), 0 ) when its sphere are all struck simultaneously.

 

But, the origin of the light sphere in the stationary frame is located at (0,0).

 

Therefore, there exist one light sphere at the origin of the stationary frame and another at ( v(r/c), 0 ) and hence there are two distinct light spheres which is a physical contradiction of one light sphere.

 

So, now it is understandable how the following conditions are met.

 

1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously.

2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously.

3) Neither sees the others strikes as simultaneous.

 

1) is met by the stationary light sphere.

2) is met by the Ritz's theory light sphere riding along with the moving frame located at vt in the coords on the stationary frame.

3) Is met by applying the stationary light sphere to the moving rigid body sphere.

 

Whence SR is a theory of one light sphere morphing into many in different places in the space of the stationary system of coordinates where the oeigin is located at vt at any time t.

 

 

2) I'm not understanding your choice of coordinate for x (and what is x_break?), why it depends on speed, and why you claim that x' = -x.

 

x can't depend on the speed of O'

 

I chose this point to establish simultaneity between the frames.

If we use the two rigid body sphere above as an example, then we can set

x = vtλ/(1+λ).

 

Since we are talking about when the light sphere hits the point, then t = r/c, where r is the rest radius of both rigid body spheres.

 

Thus, x = (vr)/(c(1+λ)).

 

Since all quantities are known, v, r, c , then x is known.

 

X can depend on the speed, it just moves as the rigid body sphere moves over time.

 

The paper proves that x^2 + y^2 = (ct)^2.

 

It also proves that ½vt < x < vt and so x is in the legal domain space of LT.

For example, if an x were picked that required v > c, then x is not in the domain.

 

 

x' = -x.

 

Proof.

 

x' = ( x - vt )λ, and x = vtλ/(1+λ).

 

So,

 

x' = (vtλ/(1+λ) - vt)λ

 

x' = vtλ( λ/(1+λ) - 1 )

 

x' = vtλ( λ/(1+λ) - (1+λ)/(1+λ) )

 

x' = vtλ( (λ - (1+λ))/(1+λ) )

 

x' = -vtλ(1+λ) = -x.

[Klaynos]

1) What you have is a mathematical contradiction. You have either misapplied the assumptions of SR (or made some other assumption) or made math a mistake.

 

Here was my objective.

 

I have two rigid body spheres in relative motion. The moving sphere contains a light source.

When their origins are coincident, the light is flashed.

 

SR makes the following statements.

1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously.

2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously.

3) Neither sees the others strikes as simultaneous.

 

1 is not consistant with 2, if the pulse is in the "moving frame" then it will be spherical in that one but not spherical in the other, I believe.

[vuquta]

Originally Posted by vuquta

1) What you have is a mathematical contradiction. You have either misapplied the assumptions of SR (or made some other assumption) or made math a mistake.

 

Here was my objective.

 

I have two rigid body spheres in relative motion. The moving sphere contains a light source.

When their origins are coincident, the light is flashed.

 

SR makes the following statements.

1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously.

2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously.

3) Neither sees the others strikes as simultaneous.

 

 

1 is not consistant with 2, if the pulse is in the "moving frame" then it will be spherical in that one but not spherical in the other, I believe.

 

 

Thanks. I agree 1 is not consistent with 2, but that is SR.

 

Here is the light postulate.

Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

 

Now, since it is "any ray of light", that means in any direction also.

 

Thus, a light sphere proceeds spherically from the emission point in the frame at c in all directions.

 

Also, it says, "whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.". Thus, even if the the light source were moving, then light would still proceed spherically from the emission point in the frame.

 

Therefore, any light pulse in any frame proceeds spherically from the emission point in the frame regardless of the relative motion of the light source.

 

Now, by setting up two rigid body spheres with a light source in the moving sphere, I can test this logic.

 

Thus, when the two rigid body spheres are coincident, the light is flashed. It must proceed spherically from the origin in the stationary frame regardless of the motion of the light source. But, also, in the moving frame, the light source is stationary at the center of that sphere and thus light must proceed spherically from there also inside that spherical frame.

 

Hence, both conditions 1 and 2 must be met under SR.

 

But, at any time t, the two rigid body spheres are seperated by a distance of vt. This necessitates two light spheres emerging out of one.

[mooeypoo]

I think you're missing a very important statement. I added it in red:

SR makes the following statements.

1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously, as seen from the stationary frame.

2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously, as seen from the moving frame.

3) Neither sees the others strikes as simultaneous.

It might seem redundant, but it makes those statements much more clearer; it's also the reason why #3 makes sense. There's no "absolute reality" in which these statements exist, they each are related through some frame of reference, and we need to be quite clear as to what they are.

 

 

I also think you have too many 1s, 2s and 3s as points. I'm not too sure i know *which* point 1 and 2 Klaynos meant, and which you mean. Can you be more specific? It's confusing, and I get the feeling we're debating different points.

[swansont]

2) I'm not understanding your choice of coordinate for x (and what is x_break?), why it depends on speed, and why you claim that x' = -x.

 

x can't depend on the speed of O'

 

I chose this point to establish simultaneity between the frames.

If we use the two rigid body sphere above as an example, then we can set

x = vtλ/(1+λ).

 

What does x represent?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

But, at any time t, the two rigid body spheres are seperated by a distance of vt. This necessitates two light spheres emerging out of one.

 

The light will not strike the points of the moving sphere simultaneously from the frame of the stationary one, and vice-versa. The point of the sphere moving directly away from the light source has a relative speed of c-v, and the point moving directly toward has a relative speed of c+v.

 

Your "two light spheres" sounds like you are mixing frames.

[vuquta]

Originally Posted by vuquta

SR makes the following statements.

1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously, as seen from the stationary frame.

2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously, as seen from the moving frame.

3) Neither sees the others strikes as simultaneous.

 

I think you're missing a very important statement. I added it in red:

 

It might seem redundant, but it makes those statements much more clearer; it's also the reason why #3 makes sense. There's no "absolute reality" in which these statements exist, they each are related through some frame of reference, and we need to be quite clear as to what they are.

 

 

I also think you have too many 1s, 2s and 3s as points. I'm not too sure i know *which* point 1 and 2 Klaynos meant, and which you mean. Can you be more specific? It's confusing, and I get the feeling we're debating different points.

 

I agree with your corrections and that makes it more specific.

That was my intention as I thought 3) indicated.

 

And, yes I can be more specific, but are you talking about 1 and 2?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What does x represent?

Oh, it is a point of simultaneity between two rigid body spheres when light strikes them. That means, both frames read the same time on their clocks when x is struck and x' = -x is struck by light where x = (vtλ)/(1+λ)

 

 

The light will not strike the points of the moving sphere simultaneously from the frame of the stationary one, and vice-versa. The point of the sphere moving directly away from the light source has a relative speed of c-v, and the point moving directly toward has a relative speed of c+v.

 

Your "two light spheres" sounds like you are mixing frames.

 

I want to abandon the bold for now.

 

However, if we can agree on the two conditions,

1) Light proceeds spherically in the stationary frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously, as seen from the stationary frame.

2) Light proceeds spherically in the moving frame from the emission point in the frame and all points on the rigid body sphere are struck simultaneously, as seen from the moving frame.

 

 

Then, I believe I can prove 2 distinct light spheres are necessary to meet both conditions and one cannot do the job.

 

The point provided will be used along with the two conditions above and a thought erxperiment I call the twin spheres thought experiment.

 

But, conditions 1 and 2 must be agreed upon as theorems of the SR light postulate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

OK, I am not stupid and understand SR very well.

 

For the first time, light timing has been preformed bt NASA.

 

http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934.pdf

 

This is consistent with my theory of absolute motion and causes SR to fail.

 

On the face of it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance and implies that light propagates in an absolute reference frame, a conclusion that most physicists (except perhaps some contemporary field theorists) would be reluctant to accept.

Edited January 6, 2010 by swansont
Consecutive posts merged. fix quote tag

[Bignose]

 

x' = vtλ( (λ - (1+λ))/(1+λ) )

 

x' = -vtλ(1+λ)

 

Just a real quick glance here, but this popped out as being wrong

 

The last line has a sign error: when you have a - on the outside of a parentheses with both a positive and a negative sign inside them, both terms cannot achieve the same sign on the inside by multiplying on the outside.

 

Also (λ - (1+λ))/(1+λ) becomes λ/(1+λ) - 1, NOT (1+λ). You have a division error, too.

 

I haven't checked any of the rest of the math, but to be frank, with these basic of errors, the rest of the math has to be considered suspect until it is verified.

 

You also may want to consider using the LaTeX capabilities of this forum, to improve the ease of reading.

 

x' = vtλ( (λ - (1+λ))/(1+λ) ) becomes

 

[math]x' = vt\lambda \left( \frac{\left( \lambda - (1+\lambda) \right)}{(1+\lambda)} \right) [/math] is significantly easier to read (I hope that I got all the ()'s correct, because when it is all in one line, it is very hard to read.)

[swansont]

 

Oh, it is a point of simultaneity between two rigid body spheres when light strikes them. That means, both frames read the same time on their clocks when x is struck and x' = -x is struck by light where x = (vtλ)/(1+λ)

 

I don't know what this means. What is simultaneous? You've already stated that the strikes will not be seen as simultaneous in the other frame.