This is a model that explain the interactions of the universe without gravity. This is not a decay model, It is an interactive information model. Inorder to realize a need for a new model requires disproving certain understandings that permiate cosmology. A field (E) cannot equal a scalar (mass) * a vector (C) ^2. It also describes baryonic expression of information. Comments are welcome, Anonymous comments with non-relevant links will not be posted.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Frame of Reference Issues
This is a paper on frame reference system. It describes in detail some of the major issues in SR and GR.
He finishes describing a simple photon clock on page 4 by claiming that "Since each detector in this array will detect the laser beam at the same time and place respectively ..., both detect the light pulse simultaneously."
This statement immediately invalidates the paper. In SR, the above observation of simultaneity in that scenario does not follow from the postulates, as they would clearly disagree on the speed of the photons. Curt's statement doesn't prove SR wrong... it *ASSUMES* SR is wrong in the first place, which offers no insight whatsoever.
The consequences of SR directly follow from the postulates by a very elementary trail of math. Believe me, 100 years of review would have shown any flaws in this regard... even the most aggressive of the anti-mainstream have to give the system a little credit here.
If you want to show that SR is wrong, don't attack the internal soundness of SR. Instead, you're better off arguing that SR as a whole disagrees with real-world experimental results.
It is not easy to describe failures in a 100 year old model. But we all know the major issues with SR and GR in relation to observation and other observational models.
I needed to disprove gravity, before this model had the legs to stand as a basic model. But gravity is an idea of how an observation works. It need not be correct to be accepted.
It is easy to dismiss an idea when it breaks a mold. Pg 4 of the paper was describing a experiment where all the detectors were independent. This is shown in the diagram on the next page.
It is also to be noted that frame of reference is not a valid or relevant discussion in the Standard Vibration Model, since time is local to the Boson expressed by the baryon.
Time abborations are caused by the Zeeman Effect.
In the SVM the electron acts as a Drum Membrane, it can collect many photon waves from different directions at one point in time. The summation of these changes (along with W and Z Bosons) change the density, temp, electric and magnetic affect the electron's baryon.
The Standard Vibration Model does not attempt to discuss the issue of SR and GR. If your model has asymptotes that produce multiple universes, wormholes, Attractive blackholes... It just shows the foundation of SR is based on fictious postulates.
When you cannot prove the asymptotes in physics do something useful. The model is no longer useful. All the asymptotes are discussed through out the blog. The most interesting are SQRT-1 and divide by 0. SMV describes effects these asymptotes cause
SVM PROVES TRIG. Where 3 lines (gluons) meet always forms a triangle. A triangle in rotation forms a solid cone. Rotation emits magnetism. Density emits heat.
Basic frame of reference is a human abstraction like integers. We used it to make leaps in understanding, but it is no longer useful in physics.
Anonymous assumes that I assume STR to be wrong. That is neither here nor there. I point out that the initial thinking, the "Galilean Transformation" (actually Voigt's diagram, from which the STR formulas were developed) assumed instantaneous motion of a light pulse. The diagram was not changed to add the finite speed of light. They merely, in their mathematical approach, use calculus to move the coordinate systems apart at imagined relativistic speed. In essence, they are transforming the source or emitter of the light pulse, and disregard the movement of the pulse itself in the source frame of reference. I show that this is a major mistake!
The emitter/source is not made of latex. It cannot stretch between reference frames. It cannot be in two places at the same time. (remember reality?) The logical truth is that the source and the emitted light pulse must actually be placed in the source frame of reference. (reference frames are only "book keeping devices, they do not exist in reality, just like lines of latitude and longitude do not exist on the sphere of the Earth unless someone paints them there)
From then on, finding the location of the pulse is a matter of detecting it from place to place; time to time. Detectors are required in both the source reference frame and the relatively moving reference frame.
This is what my diagrams show. One can hardy expect the detectors in the relatively moving reference frame to have the identical layout with reference to their own system origin as those have in the source/emitter reference frame.
Einstein and friends never try to actually locate the pulse, they just make up "postulates" and let their imaginations flow. Look up the several definitions of "postulate" some time.
Anonymous seems to be a dyed in the wool, cognitive dissonant defender of the consensus belief system. Sorry about the label, but I have dealt with similar thinking for many years. Probably no logic presented to the likes of his thinking will ever cause the "light" to go on for him/her.
Everyone: Please post your comments at the Fqxi site, too!
> the "Galilean Transformation" assumed instantaneous motion of a light pulse.
Why do you think this?
> It cannot be in two places at the same time.
It can be labeled with two different spacial coordinates for the same time coordinate.
If you reject SR's posulates, then you can't expect SR's conclusions. Your paper could be a lot shorter if you just said "When you reject the postulates of SR, SR doesn't apply." Everyone would agree with you on that.
> The logical truth is that the source and the emitted light pulse must actually be placed in the source frame of reference.
Again, you reject the postulates. No problem. But just be aware that you're no longer arguing anything about SR since you've rejected its premises outright.
> Einstein and friends never try to actually locate the pulse, they just make up "postulates" and let their imaginations flow.
It's not a theory about detectors. It's a theory about the physics of light. As such, it just defines how things work under the assumptions of the theory.
Speaking of your essay, some excerpts:
> This idea merely complicates the reality and simplicity of understanding the propagation of light. (and is nonsense because a fourth axis perpendicular to the three needed to locate a point in Euclidean space produces a duplicate of an already existing axis. Hence the need to postulate a “fourth dimension,” useful to mathematically manipulate to any desired purpose)
He's not claiming we live in 4D space. No need to invoke that argument.
He is claiming that the transformation of coordinates between reference frames has a time dependence, and as such, builds a model that includes all relevant variables. The model is 4D. Space is still 3D.
And it's not used "to any desired purpose". It's defined with explicit assumptions and all results are presented mathematically as derived from the assumptions. Anyone can take the outputs and test them against experiment. It's called rigor.
> All objects within a “frame of reference” are at rest with each other; at fixed distances.
This is definitely not true. In fact, it's not even possible in general to find such things as you describe. If I have two objects moving away from each other, there is no fixed reference frame such that they are at rest with each other.
A coordinate system just lays down labels. Objects can freely move within it with non-equal velocities, and there need be no privilaged object with zero velocity anywhere within it.
> Einstein seems to have reified these abstract concepts into physical existence.
No. Einstein (nor any scientist I know of) never made claim that coordinate systems were real. In fact, Einstein is arguing the exact opposite... that they're arbitrary, and that the laws of physics is independent of them.
> The preceding leaves his next postulate, “The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference,” true for sources and detectors within said frames of reference but lost in ambiguity with respect to the speed of light emitted from a source in one reference frame and detectors located in another “moving” frame.
There is no ambiguity in SR. Objects in both frames will see/compute the same value of c. Period. But in order to reach this conclusion, they will disagree on lengths and times.
> He then “postulates” that the longitudinal distance in the zigzag frame shrinks, ...
No, he "postulates" nothing more than is present in the postulates, and nowhere there does he reference length contraction. The latter is a derived result.
> He can't really have time dilation and distance contraction simultaneously.
Your essay reads much less like a "logical" analysis, and much more like an "intuitive" analysis. SR is not intuitive.
As I said earlier, you don't have to accept SR's postulates, but all of SR's results DO follow from them, and the result is consistent.
Anonymous said on September 24, 2012 10:10 AM . . .: > the "Galilean Transformation" assumed instantaneous motion of a light pulse.
Why do you think this?
>>Curt said: Galileo thought light speed was instantaneous. The diagram is how Voigt and Einstein thought Galileo would have diagrammed it. Study up on your history, my friend.
> It cannot be in two places at the same time.
It can be labeled with two different spacial coordinates for the same time coordinate.
>>>The “it “ to which you refer is the emitter/laser/light source. Yes, you are right. That time coordinate is when the source emits the light beam, at t=0, and both origins are coincident. The beam begins traveling while the coordinate system opposite the emitter keeps moving. If the emitter was 5 feet from both origins when it emitted the beam, it will take 5 nanoseconds for the beam's leading edge to reach the emitter's origin. That would be t=5 nanoseconds. You see; the time and distance are all determined right there, for the source/emitter reference frame. Now, during the five seconds elapsed time, the opposite reference frame has moved 2.5 feet, if it is moving at ½ c. So when the edge of the beam has reached the emitter origin, the other origin is already 7.5 feet past the emitter origin.
If you reject SR's posulates, then you can't expect SR's conclusions. Your paper could be a lot shorter if you just said "When you reject the postulates of SR, SR doesn't apply." Everyone would agree with you on that.
>>Your logic here will lead you to the unicorn poo. So far in this discussion I have not rejected his first postulate, and his second postulate allows for the speed of light to be c in the emitter reference frame. If the opposite frame is moving at 1/2c, it covers half the distance that light moves in the same time. If the reference system had a head-start of 5 feet or five nanoseconds, you tell me when the leading edge of the light beam laps the origin of the opposite reference frame.
> The logical truth is that the source and the emitted light pulse must actually be placed in the source frame of reference.
Again, you reject the postulates. No problem. But just be aware that you're no longer arguing anything about SR since you've rejected its premises outright.
>>>Now you are being illogical. Where, pray tell would you place each one? Where on Earth do you think the light pulse comes from?
> Einstein and friends never try to actually locate the pulse, they just make up "postulates" and let their imaginations flow.
It's not a theory about detectors. It's a theory about the physics of light. As such, it just defines how things work under the assumptions of the theory.
>>>Yes Einstein's theory is a fanciful guess about the physics of light. If he had tried to determine where the light pulse was in the source frame before getting all excited about what he thought clocks do, he might have realized that clocks have nothing to do with the process. You are quite naive to believe detection has nothing to do with the theory. What in the world do you think his observers do?
Anonymous said on September 24, 2012 10:10 AM . . .:
Speaking of your essay, some excerpts:
> This idea merely complicates the reality and simplicity of understanding the propagation of light. (and is nonsense because a fourth axis perpendicular to the three needed to locate a point in Euclidean space produces a duplicate of an already existing axis. Hence the need to postulate a “fourth dimension,” useful to mathematically manipulate to any desired purpose)
He's not claiming we live in 4D space. No need to invoke that argument.
>>>Where does a fourth axis perpendicular to the three existing axes go? It duplicates which ever one of the other three you choose. I show that it is not necessary in the first place. No need to invoke the fourth axis.
He is claiming that the transformation of coordinates between reference frames has a time dependence, and as such, builds a model that includes all relevant variables. The model is 4D. Space is still 3D.
>>>I doubt you will ever get it. The finite speed of light means that for any given distance, a pulse of light will take a finite time to travel it. The “model” requires “tensors” to bend the fourth axis around to which ever coordinates are under consideration. I have shown above that obviously there is relativity of simultaneity when there is no second observer in the opposite reference frame when the light gets to a given position. If there can be an instance where two origins, two observers (one for each frame) and the emission of the pulse coincide, we can have some more observers where ever we wish. Where is the rule that we cannot?
And it's not used "to any desired purpose". It's defined with explicit assumptions and all results are presented mathematically as derived from the assumptions. Anyone can take the outputs and test them against experiment. It's called rigor.
>>>Yes, I agree, its all rigor, using circular reasoning. Recent experiments using radar ranging and experiments actually measuring the length of the pulse from a moving source compared to the same duration of a “stationary with the source” pulse's length, show that you are on thin ground.
> All objects within a “frame of reference” are at rest with each other; at fixed distances.
This is definitely not true. In fact, it's not even possible in general to find such things as you describe. If I have two objects moving away from each other, there is no fixed reference frame such that they are at rest with each other.
>>>Good grief! If two objects are moving away from each other, they are in separate reference frames! Are you actually thinking while you write this stuff?
A coordinate system just lays down labels. Objects can freely move within it with non-equal velocities, and there need be no privileged object with zero velocity anywhere within it.
>>>Do you just have extra words that you feel you need to use? The above sentence is so full of non sequiturs, I don't know where to begin to straighten you out. One more time . . . Nothing changes location in a coordinate system. If it does, it is in a different coordinate system. An old timey movie camera takes “frames” of still pictures. Nothing moves in any of them. They are stop motion. That is the same thing I have done. There is no law against it. Apparently you think there is a law against understanding this simple fact.
> Einstein seems to have reified these abstract concepts into physical existence.
No. Einstein (nor any scientist I know of) never made claim that coordinate systems were real. In fact, Einstein is arguing the exact opposite... that they're arbitrary, and that the laws of physics is independent of them.
>>>Then why does he/they think motion skews them? If they are arbitrary then why do they use them in the first place? Your arguments are getting more sophomoric as you go.
Anonymous said on September 24, 2012 10:10 AM . . .: >(Curt said:) The preceding leaves his next postulate, “The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference,” true for sources and detectors within said frames of reference but lost in ambiguity with respect to the speed of light emitted from a source in one reference frame and detectors located in another “moving” frame.
There is no ambiguity in SR. Objects in both frames will see/compute the same value of c. Period. But in order to reach this conclusion, they will disagree on lengths and times.
>>>You can say there is no ambiguity, but to use your reasoning, his theory doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense! As I have shown, simply following the pulse in the “at rest with the source” frame gives the location of the pulse there, from place to place. A moving observer will never see the pulse unless he/they are in the same place as the stationary observer, when the pulse is there too. You tell me how else it would work. Your comment above does not. Period
> He then “postulates” that the longitudinal distance in the zigzag frame shrinks, ...
No, he "postulates" nothing more than is present in the postulates, and nowhere there does he reference length contraction. The latter is a derived result.
>>>It really doesn't matter, since there is no diagonally going “photon.” How does the laser beam suddenly swerve to the various angles required of various observers, all observing the light from an infinite number of velocities? In fact, two observers going opposite directions and observing the same beam will require it to swerve opposite directions at the same time!
> He can't really have time dilation and distance contraction simultaneously.
>>> You didn't comment to this statement. Both supposedly correct for the same thing. Once it is corrected, why is the other needed?
Your essay reads much less like a "logical" analysis, and much more like an "intuitive" analysis. SR is not intuitive.
>>>Yes, I would place logic right next to intuitive. If it isn't both logical and intuitive, it is nonsense.
As I said earlier, you don't have to accept SR's postulates, but all of SR's results DO follow from them, and the result is consistent
>>>The results are consistent with the diagram for instantaneous light, “transforming” the emitter, which cannot be transformed, except in unicorn land, and does not deal at all with the pulse of light and its whereabouts. Postulating that the moving frame with the emitter in it, moves at the speed of light does not explain the finite speed of light in relation to the stationary observer.
But you keep on believing, Einstein's theory requires your unthinking belief.
He finishes describing a simple photon clock on page 4 by claiming that "Since each detector in this array will detect the laser beam at the same time and place respectively ..., both detect the light pulse simultaneously."
ReplyDeleteThis statement immediately invalidates the paper. In SR, the above observation of simultaneity in that scenario does not follow from the postulates, as they would clearly disagree on the speed of the photons. Curt's statement doesn't prove SR wrong... it *ASSUMES* SR is wrong in the first place, which offers no insight whatsoever.
The consequences of SR directly follow from the postulates by a very elementary trail of math. Believe me, 100 years of review would have shown any flaws in this regard... even the most aggressive of the anti-mainstream have to give the system a little credit here.
If you want to show that SR is wrong, don't attack the internal soundness of SR. Instead, you're better off arguing that SR as a whole disagrees with real-world experimental results.
It is not easy to describe failures in a 100 year old model. But we all know the major issues with SR and GR in relation to observation and other observational models.
ReplyDeleteI needed to disprove gravity, before this model had the legs to stand as a basic model. But gravity is an idea of how an observation works. It need not be correct to be accepted.
It is easy to dismiss an idea when it breaks a mold. Pg 4 of the paper was describing a experiment where all the detectors were independent. This is shown in the diagram on the next page.
It is also to be noted that frame of reference is not a valid or relevant discussion in the Standard Vibration Model, since time is local to the Boson expressed by the baryon.
Time abborations are caused by the Zeeman Effect.
In the SVM the electron acts as a Drum Membrane, it can collect many photon waves from different directions at one point in time. The summation of these changes (along with W and Z Bosons) change the density, temp, electric and magnetic affect the electron's baryon.
The Standard Vibration Model does not attempt to discuss the issue of SR and GR. If your model has asymptotes that produce multiple universes, wormholes, Attractive blackholes... It just shows the foundation of SR is based on fictious postulates.
When you cannot prove the asymptotes in physics do something useful. The model is no longer useful. All the asymptotes are discussed through out the blog. The most interesting are SQRT-1 and divide by 0. SMV describes effects these asymptotes cause
SVM PROVES TRIG. Where 3 lines (gluons) meet always forms a triangle. A triangle in rotation forms a solid cone. Rotation emits magnetism. Density emits heat.
Basic frame of reference is a human abstraction like integers. We used it to make leaps in understanding, but it is no longer useful in physics.
Aaron
In the Standard Vibration Model this problem is solved with Dark Energy as describe in the paper on the right side of the blog.
DeleteAnonymous assumes that I assume STR to be wrong. That is neither here nor there. I point out that the initial thinking, the "Galilean Transformation" (actually Voigt's diagram, from which the STR formulas were developed) assumed instantaneous motion of a light pulse. The diagram was not changed to add the finite speed of light. They merely, in their mathematical approach, use calculus to move the coordinate systems apart at imagined relativistic speed. In essence, they are transforming the source or emitter of the light pulse, and disregard the movement of the pulse itself in the source frame of reference. I show that this is a major mistake!
ReplyDeleteThe emitter/source is not made of latex. It cannot stretch between reference frames. It cannot be in two places at the same time. (remember reality?) The logical truth is that the source and the emitted light pulse must actually be placed in the source frame of reference. (reference frames are only "book keeping devices, they do not exist in reality, just like lines of latitude and longitude do not exist on the sphere of the Earth unless someone paints them there)
From then on, finding the location of the pulse is a matter of detecting it from place to place; time to time. Detectors are required in both the source reference frame and the relatively moving reference frame.
This is what my diagrams show. One can hardy expect the detectors in the relatively moving reference frame to have the identical layout with reference to their own system origin as those have in the source/emitter reference frame.
Einstein and friends never try to actually locate the pulse, they just make up "postulates" and let their imaginations flow. Look up the several definitions of "postulate" some time.
Anonymous seems to be a dyed in the wool, cognitive dissonant defender of the consensus belief system. Sorry about the label, but I have dealt with similar thinking for many years. Probably no logic presented to the likes of his thinking will ever cause the "light" to go on for him/her.
Everyone: Please post your comments at the Fqxi site, too!
> the "Galilean Transformation" assumed instantaneous motion of a light pulse.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think this?
> It cannot be in two places at the same time.
It can be labeled with two different spacial coordinates for the same time coordinate.
If you reject SR's posulates, then you can't expect SR's conclusions. Your paper could be a lot shorter if you just said "When you reject the postulates of SR, SR doesn't apply." Everyone would agree with you on that.
> The logical truth is that the source and the emitted light pulse must actually be placed in the source frame of reference.
Again, you reject the postulates. No problem. But just be aware that you're no longer arguing anything about SR since you've rejected its premises outright.
> Einstein and friends never try to actually locate the pulse, they just make up "postulates" and let their imaginations flow.
It's not a theory about detectors. It's a theory about the physics of light. As such, it just defines how things work under the assumptions of the theory.
Speaking of your essay, some excerpts:
> This idea merely complicates the reality and simplicity of understanding the propagation of light. (and is nonsense because a fourth axis perpendicular to the three needed to locate a point in Euclidean space produces a duplicate of an already existing axis. Hence the need to postulate a “fourth dimension,” useful to mathematically manipulate to any desired purpose)
He's not claiming we live in 4D space. No need to invoke that argument.
He is claiming that the transformation of coordinates between reference frames has a time dependence, and as such, builds a model that includes all relevant variables. The model is 4D. Space is still 3D.
And it's not used "to any desired purpose". It's defined with explicit assumptions and all results are presented mathematically as derived from the assumptions. Anyone can take the outputs and test them against experiment. It's called rigor.
> All objects within a “frame of reference” are at rest with each other; at fixed distances.
This is definitely not true. In fact, it's not even possible in general to find such things as you describe. If I have two objects moving away from each other, there is no fixed reference frame such that they are at rest with each other.
A coordinate system just lays down labels. Objects can freely move within it with non-equal velocities, and there need be no privilaged object with zero velocity anywhere within it.
> Einstein seems to have reified these abstract concepts into physical existence.
No. Einstein (nor any scientist I know of) never made claim that coordinate systems were real. In fact, Einstein is arguing the exact opposite... that they're arbitrary, and that the laws of physics is independent of them.
> The preceding leaves his next postulate, “The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference,” true for sources and detectors within said frames of reference but lost in ambiguity with respect to the speed of light emitted from a source in one reference frame and detectors located in another “moving” frame.
There is no ambiguity in SR. Objects in both frames will see/compute the same value of c. Period. But in order to reach this conclusion, they will disagree on lengths and times.
> He then “postulates” that the longitudinal distance in the zigzag frame shrinks, ...
No, he "postulates" nothing more than is present in the postulates, and nowhere there does he reference length contraction. The latter is a derived result.
> He can't really have time dilation and distance contraction simultaneously.
Your essay reads much less like a "logical" analysis, and much more like an "intuitive" analysis. SR is not intuitive.
As I said earlier, you don't have to accept SR's postulates, but all of SR's results DO follow from them, and the result is consistent.
Anonymous said on September 24, 2012 10:10 AM . . .:
ReplyDelete> the "Galilean Transformation" assumed instantaneous motion of a light pulse.
Why do you think this?
>>Curt said: Galileo thought light speed was instantaneous. The diagram is how Voigt and Einstein thought Galileo would have diagrammed it. Study up on your history, my friend.
> It cannot be in two places at the same time.
It can be labeled with two different spacial coordinates for the same time coordinate.
>>>The “it “ to which you refer is the emitter/laser/light source. Yes, you are right. That time coordinate is when the source emits the light beam, at t=0, and both origins are coincident. The beam begins traveling while the coordinate system opposite the emitter keeps moving. If the emitter was 5 feet from both origins when it emitted the beam, it will take 5 nanoseconds for the beam's leading edge to reach the emitter's origin. That would be t=5 nanoseconds. You see; the time and distance are all determined right there, for the source/emitter reference frame. Now, during the five seconds elapsed time, the opposite reference frame has moved 2.5 feet, if it is moving at ½ c. So when the edge of the beam has reached the emitter origin, the other origin is already 7.5 feet past the emitter origin.
If you reject SR's posulates, then you can't expect SR's conclusions. Your paper could be a lot shorter if you just said "When you reject the postulates of SR, SR doesn't apply." Everyone would agree with you on that.
>>Your logic here will lead you to the unicorn poo. So far in this discussion I have not rejected his first postulate, and his second postulate allows for the speed of light to be c in the emitter reference frame. If the opposite frame is moving at 1/2c, it covers half the distance that light moves in the same time. If the reference system had a head-start of 5 feet or five nanoseconds, you tell me when the leading edge of the light beam laps the origin of the opposite reference frame.
> The logical truth is that the source and the emitted light pulse must actually be placed in the source frame of reference.
Again, you reject the postulates. No problem. But just be aware that you're no longer arguing anything about SR since you've rejected its premises outright.
>>>Now you are being illogical. Where, pray tell would you place each one? Where on Earth do you think the light pulse comes from?
> Einstein and friends never try to actually locate the pulse, they just make up "postulates" and let their imaginations flow.
It's not a theory about detectors. It's a theory about the physics of light. As such, it just defines how things work under the assumptions of the theory.
>>>Yes Einstein's theory is a fanciful guess about the physics of light. If he had tried to determine where the light pulse was in the source frame before getting all excited about what he thought clocks do, he might have realized that clocks have nothing to do with the process. You are quite naive to believe detection has nothing to do with the theory. What in the world do you think his observers do?
Anonymous said on September 24, 2012 10:10 AM . . .:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of your essay, some excerpts:
> This idea merely complicates the reality and simplicity of understanding the propagation of light. (and is nonsense because a fourth axis perpendicular to the three needed to locate a point in Euclidean space produces a duplicate of an already existing axis. Hence the need to postulate a “fourth dimension,” useful to mathematically manipulate to any desired purpose)
He's not claiming we live in 4D space. No need to invoke that argument.
>>>Where does a fourth axis perpendicular to the three existing axes go? It duplicates which ever one of the other three you choose. I show that it is not necessary in the first place. No need to invoke the fourth axis.
He is claiming that the transformation of coordinates between reference frames has a time dependence, and as such, builds a model that includes all relevant variables. The model is 4D. Space is still 3D.
>>>I doubt you will ever get it. The finite speed of light means that for any given distance, a pulse of light will take a finite time to travel it. The “model” requires “tensors” to bend the fourth axis around to which ever coordinates are under consideration. I have shown above that obviously there is relativity of simultaneity when there is no second observer in the opposite reference frame when the light gets to a given position. If there can be an instance where two origins, two observers (one for each frame) and the emission of the pulse coincide, we can have some more observers where ever we wish. Where is the rule that we cannot?
And it's not used "to any desired purpose". It's defined with explicit assumptions and all results are presented mathematically as derived from the assumptions. Anyone can take the outputs and test them against experiment. It's called rigor.
>>>Yes, I agree, its all rigor, using circular reasoning. Recent experiments using radar ranging and experiments actually measuring the length of the pulse from a moving source compared to the same duration of a “stationary with the source” pulse's length, show that you are on thin ground.
> All objects within a “frame of reference” are at rest with each other; at fixed distances.
This is definitely not true. In fact, it's not even possible in general to find such things as you describe. If I have two objects moving away from each other, there is no fixed reference frame such that they are at rest with each other.
>>>Good grief! If two objects are moving away from each other, they are in separate reference frames! Are you actually thinking while you write this stuff?
A coordinate system just lays down labels. Objects can freely move within it with non-equal velocities, and there need be no privileged object with zero velocity anywhere within it.
>>>Do you just have extra words that you feel you need to use? The above sentence is so full of non sequiturs, I don't know where to begin to straighten you out. One more time . . . Nothing changes location in a coordinate system. If it does, it is in a different coordinate system. An old timey movie camera takes “frames” of still pictures. Nothing moves in any of them. They are stop motion. That is the same thing I have done. There is no law against it. Apparently you think there is a law against understanding this simple fact.
> Einstein seems to have reified these abstract concepts into physical existence.
No. Einstein (nor any scientist I know of) never made claim that coordinate systems were real. In fact, Einstein is arguing the exact opposite... that they're arbitrary, and that the laws of physics is independent of them.
>>>Then why does he/they think motion skews them? If they are arbitrary then why do they use them in the first place? Your arguments are getting more sophomoric as you go.
Anonymous said on September 24, 2012 10:10 AM . . .:
ReplyDelete>(Curt said:) The preceding leaves his next postulate, “The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference,” true for sources and detectors within said frames of reference but lost in ambiguity with respect to the speed of light emitted from a source in one reference frame and detectors located in another “moving” frame.
There is no ambiguity in SR. Objects in both frames will see/compute the same value of c. Period. But in order to reach this conclusion, they will disagree on lengths and times.
>>>You can say there is no ambiguity, but to use your reasoning, his theory doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense! As I have shown, simply following the pulse in the “at rest with the source” frame gives the location of the pulse there, from place to place. A moving observer will never see the pulse unless he/they are in the same place as the stationary observer, when the pulse is there too. You tell me how else it would work. Your comment above does not. Period
> He then “postulates” that the longitudinal distance in the zigzag frame shrinks, ...
No, he "postulates" nothing more than is present in the postulates, and nowhere there does he reference length contraction. The latter is a derived result.
>>>It really doesn't matter, since there is no diagonally going “photon.” How does the laser beam suddenly swerve to the various angles required of various observers, all observing the light from an infinite number of velocities? In fact, two observers going opposite directions and observing the same beam will require it to swerve opposite directions at the same time!
> He can't really have time dilation and distance contraction simultaneously.
>>> You didn't comment to this statement. Both supposedly correct for the same thing. Once it is corrected, why is the other needed?
Your essay reads much less like a "logical" analysis, and much more like an "intuitive" analysis. SR is not intuitive.
>>>Yes, I would place logic right next to intuitive. If it isn't both logical and intuitive, it is nonsense.
As I said earlier, you don't have to accept SR's postulates, but all of SR's results DO follow from them, and the result is consistent
>>>The results are consistent with the diagram for instantaneous light, “transforming” the emitter, which cannot be transformed, except in unicorn land, and does not deal at all with the pulse of light and its whereabouts. Postulating that the moving frame with the emitter in it, moves at the speed of light does not explain the finite speed of light in relation to the stationary observer.
But you keep on believing, Einstein's theory requires your unthinking belief.