phyti Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Phyti - You must have missed Janus' Animation LHW I saw his animation. It's demonstrating that light moves independently of its source. Light does not acquire the speed of the emitter. A good analogy is a boat moving in water, and a stone dropped from the boat into the water. The speed of the waves from the stone is determined by the properties of the water, and is independent of the boat speed. The counterparts for the water, stone, and waves are space, ship, and light. You have simultaneous motion of light and two ships, and a space-time drawing is very helpful in sorting it all out. From E's perspective, what distance did the light travel, and how much time did it take? The answer is understanding that the 'closing speed' is not strictly a speed, but a rate of contraction or expansion of a spatial interval, which itself is NOT moving. Close a pair of scissors. The point where they cross moves much faster than the tips, BUT that point is not an object, but the positional relation of one blade to the other. Edited February 2, 2011 by phyti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 I saw his animation.It's demonstrating that light moves independently of its source. Light does not acquire the speed of the emitter. A good analogy is a boat moving in water, and a stone dropped from the boat into the water. The speed of the waves from the stone is determined by the properties of the water, and is independent of the boat speed. The counterparts for the water, stone, and waves are space, ship, and light. You have simultaneous motion of light and two ships, and a space-time drawing is very helpful in sorting it all out. From E's perspective, what distance did the light travel, and how much time did it take? The answer is understanding that the 'closing speed' is not strictly a speed, but a rate of contraction or expansion of a spatial interval, which itself is NOT moving. Close a pair of scissors. The point where they cross moves much faster than the tips, BUT that point is not an object, but the positional relation of one blade to the other. The point I take issue with is your interpretation of "closing speed", which is bottom-line real for both collider operators and the EO. They both know when the experiment ends as well as, if not better than, any traveling "observers". Even Janus grudgingly acknowledged that my claim that EO observes information exchange between A & B at 1.7c is valid, even though light is only travelling through space at c. LHW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Why do you continue to flog this? There's nothing superluminal about the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Why do you continue to flog this? There's nothing superluminal about the situation. I was, and still am, happy to leave it at THIS! LHW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Well, if you could leave it like this: Nothing in my statements require light to exceed c through space. Then EVERYONE would be happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YBPcoI4OE9Y That's all I want, EVERYONE HAPPY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now