View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:02 am




Reply to topic  [ 385 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
 Simultaneity 
Author Message
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:20 am
Posts: 604
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Picture of a Moving Passenger Car
In above passenger car (often shown in books), light source is lighting and on the ground, an observer is standing. There is the second picture. In this picture, the passenger car is standing and another passenger car (in it, there is the observer) is passing by. Two pictures will deny Lorentz contraction and relativity of simultaneity.


Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:55 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:00 pm
Posts: 689
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
Optimist5 wrote:
The sagnac POV is properly accelerating due to rotation of the sagnac device. An accelerometer would detect the change in motion.

O5

The Sagnac POV is properly accelerating due to the contact force of the earth's surface on the Sagnac device. The contact force is a mechanical force, so it causes the proper acceleration.
Yes, an accelerometer would detect the change in motion. Perhaps a better way to put it is that the Sagnac device IS an accelerometer.
The Sagnac device would not determine the rotation if it was merely in orbit around the earth. For one thing, the mirrors would not be rotating around their axis while the cavity was completing its orbit. The gravitational force of the earth does not create a torque around the axis of the mirrors.
So the Sagnac cavity is really responding only to the contact force. The contact force is what makes the rotating frame noninertial.
I think the dynamics of relativity is just as important as the kinematics of relativity. One has to know whether mechanical forces are acting on the observer, and if so how much mechanical force is acting on the observer. So when the instruments are attached to the surface of the earth, or suspended in the atmosphere of the earth, one has to include the effect of the contact forces on the instrument in question.


Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:01 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:20 am
Posts: 604
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
There is an equilateral hexagonal light path formed with six mirrors. Light emitted from a light source (frequency is constant) is traveling around (only one round). To a moving observer also, frequency at each apex is the same.


Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:48 pm
Profile
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 1127
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
Darwin123 wrote:
..
The Sagnac device would not determine the rotation if it was merely in orbit around the earth. ...

Nonsense! The speed of light (radio waves) relative to ISS is c+-v, where v=speed of ISS relative to ECNRRF.

ECNRRF: Earth centered non-rotating reference frame.


Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:49 am
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:20 am
Posts: 604
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
A picture of a moving passenger car on relativity of simultaneity (in the car, to the front and the rear, lights are sent) will stand up when moving is in a uniform acceleration.
However, observers in the car and stands on the ground will see the same picture.

From the above, plane waves of light are falling on the roof of a moving passenger car. Common explanation of relativity of simultaneity does not stand up.


Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:53 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:00 pm
Posts: 689
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
nakayama wrote:
A picture of a moving passenger car on relativity of simultaneity (in the car, to the front and the rear, lights are sent) will stand up when moving is in a uniform acceleration.
However, observers in the car and stands on the ground will see the same picture.

From the above, plane waves of light are falling on the roof of a moving passenger car. Common explanation of relativity of simultaneity does not stand up.

No.
The passenger in an accelerating car will have to lean or hold on to something in order to balance. The person on the ground will not have to lean or hold on to anything. He can stand up.

The person in an accelerating car will see the rays of light come in at a different angle in front of the car than in the back of the car. The difference between the angle and the normal will also change with distance from the passenger. The street signs far in from of him will be illuminated in a different way from the street signs far in the back of the car.


Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:51 pm
Profile
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 3862
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
Dear nakayama, I have changed your words into grammatically correct English - but I certainly agree that non-simultaneity is mere Einstein pretence & BS! :lol: :lol:
nakayama wrote:
A picture of a moving passenger car on relativity of simultaneity (in the car, to the front and the rear, lightbeams are sent out) will stand up when moving is in a uniform acceleration.
However, observers in the car and those standing on the ground will see the same picture.

From the above, plane waves of light are falling on the roof of a moving passenger car. Common explanation of relativity of simultaneity does not stand up.
From your second last sentence you have to take in the transverse Doppler effect too.
Darwin123 replying to nakayama wrote:
No.
The passenger in an accelerating car will have to lean or hold on to something in order to balance. The person on the ground will not have to lean or hold on to anything. He can stand up.
True, but what is the body relative to which only ONE of the persons is accelerating. Obviously it is not the accelerating car itself. Just as gravity is proportional to the mass of the attracting body (and the distance), what is acceleration proportional to? This indicates that acceleration is not merely relative such that the phrase "accelerating wrt one another" is not adequate to describe the situation. (And please spare us the Einsteinian BS about proper & coordinate acceleration; i.e. proper acceleration + coordinate acceleration = improper acceleration :roll: ).

Darwin123 wrote:
The person in an accelerating car will see the rays of light come in at a different angle in front of the car than in the back of the car. The difference between the angle and the normal will also change with distance from the passenger. The street signs far in from of him will be illuminated in a different way from the street signs far in the back of the car.
What matters here is that whatever you propose, it must not lead to logical paradoxes like Einstein's SR does! Of course a relatively stationary and an accelerating observer will each see a transverse light beam coming from different angles and suffering different transverse Doppler effects. The issue is to put the observations together WITHOUT generating logical paradoxes, i.e. by removing TD&LC from the consideration, just as nakayama is trying to do.

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT


Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:34 pm
Profile
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 1127
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
OZLOFT wrote:
...
nakayama wrote:
...
From the above, plane waves of light are falling on the roof of a moving passenger car. Common explanation of relativity of simultaneity does not stand up.
From your second last sentence you have to take in the transverse Doppler effect too...


Transverse Doppler effect does not exist. Unless you believe in TD.

Image


Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:10 pm
Profile
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 3862
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
Dear cryptic, your picture suggest what I believe to be "plane waves of light"...
cryptic wrote:
OZLOFT wrote:
...
nakayama wrote:
...
From the above, plane waves of light are falling on the roof of a moving passenger car. Common explanation of relativity of simultaneity does not stand up.
From your second last sentence you have to take in the transverse Doppler effect too...


Transverse Doppler effect does not exist. Unless you believe in TD.

Image
...i.e. light waves coming down upon the passenger car. By 'moving' however, I take it to mean that the passenger car is moving at right angles relative to the light source - or at least moving transversely wrt the light source.

This being the case you will have the transverse Doppler Effect, which is a genuine phenomenon - and is definitely not some bizarre implication of time dilation (TD). I am very puzzled, cryptic, at how you could link the physically real transverse Doppler effect with time dilation, unless by 'TD' you have confused the abbreviations of the two.

I must admit though, that when two bodies are in relative tangential motion (i.e. not aimed directly away from or towards one another), a light source (M) from one body will be absorbed by the other (O) showing both longitudinal and transverse Doppler effects. Here I presume the two bodies are in linear motion, without change in velocity in their respective trajectories. The transverse Doppler effect increases the wavelength for the tangentially approaching and receding bodies (I presume) though it may not have an effect on the light source passing by exactly at right angles to the observer on the other body (since cos of 90 degrees = 0). Nevertheless, at that right angle or 90 degree point, the light from M would still be dimmer from a light source parallel to it but aimed directly at the observer. I.e. in the representation below, O sees both longitudinal L and tangential M but L will always be brighter due to its nearness.


Moving (tangential) light source >>>M>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Moving (longitudinal light source >>>L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O


The dimmer light from M may also be due to its briefer trajectory relative to O (from fewer absorbed photons) but I must confess that I always presumed that there would be a still further dimming of M's light - even at the point of passing O - due to a transverse Doppler effect. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: I also confess that I might be entirely mistaken here - though in this case too, I neither adopt the Lorentz-dogmatic ARF nor Einstein's SR-BS as the explanation for any Doppler Effect of any sort, unlike Wikipedia.

The BS in Wikipedia on transverse Doppler effect tries to attribute the phenomenon to SR - CLarryfication indeed! :roll: , but when you look at it you see that the term 'relativistic' means only a high-speed phenomenon associated with electromagnetic phenomena. It doesn't mean accepting SR-BS nor TD nor LC - and that's what counts. :)

I.e. I had presumed that transverse motion relative to a light source would not only cause the received wavelength to increase but also make it appear that the light source is coming rather towards the front of the object (i.e. aberration, a real phenomenon). But my underlined presumption is probably wrong :oops: unless evidence can be put forth to demonstrate the effect, especially at the 90 degree transverse "point of passing".

See also Xing-Bin Huang Investigations on the Theory of the Transverse Doppler Effect which comes up when you google Transverse Doppler Effect. Note first of all however that Einstein mistreated the Doppler Effect right at the beginning in OEMBS, treating it entirely mathematically by subordinating it to SR. Hence neither the normal nor transverse Doppler Effect prove SR, but rather are primary observed phenomena, [color=#00FFFF]not derived from SR in any way whatsoever, just like the E=mcc equation which is derived from considerations quite independent of SR (e.g. the pressure of light as even George Gamow admitted.[/color]

I.e. like myself, you too have been confused by the pollution of physics by SR. You need to read up on Doppler Ensemble Theory here - and the LTs basis in the Voigt Doppler Equation - and forget about the logical-paradox-inducing ARF/Newton's absolute space which Einstein relied upon covertly to concoct both TD&LC seemingly independently of the Three Stooges.

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT


Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:38 am
Profile
Lurker

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:57 am
Posts: 1
Reply with quote
Post Re: Simultaneity
Here in this blog we are about the simultaneity that is always using for all the commenter. I like to share my personal experiences with you on the website https://www.aussiewritingreviews.com/ with complete meanings about the simultaneously things.


Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:59 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 385 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.