Register to reply 
What happens in the restframe with lightsource? 
Share this thread: 
#55
Mar812, 10:03 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,686

There is nothing wrong with the article but, as I said before, you have to understand what their variables stand for. If you think there is something wrong with the article, please don't mix up your complaint with your own version, just point out where you think it is in error and we can deal with that separately from your own version. First off, I know that you cannot observe a photon or measure its progress so you're going to have to show me how you plan on doing this before I can get motivated to try to understand the rest of your proof. Secondly, it seems like you have it backwards. Why do you say an observer in motion observes the photon traveling straight out but the observer at rest measures it at an angle? I'm trying to associate your scenarios with the diagrams in the wiki article and maybe that's a mistake. Maybe you are presenting something totally different. So I cannot make sense of your equations that follow. You need to provide your own pictures and relate your equations to them so that I can follow your proof. But remember, you cannot observe the motion of a photon so deal with that before continuing on. 


#56
Mar812, 04:09 PM

P: 249

It is Newton's equation for distance... I don't really know what more there is to say about it. d=vt. I am saying that you can replace v with the speed of light in order to find the distance the photon has traveled. Both observers would then use their own time to measure this distance. So then if the photon traveled for one secound then you would multiply that times the velocity and get about 300,000 km.
So then say Michealson stays with his experiment and then measures the speed of light traveling in it. All he would have to do is find the amount of time it took to travel across the experiment and the distance across the experiment to find the speed of light. So then c=d/t. Now say Morley pass's the experiment in his car and watches it through the window. He notices that the experiment still measured the photons to travel in a straight line in the experiment to reach the end at the same time. Traveling at a relative velocity doesn't effect the outcome of the experiment. He then draws the path of the photon on his car window as it passes by with a magic marker. The line he just drew was moveing at an angle along with the motion of the car. Morley then concludes that the photon traveled a larger distance in his frame of reference so then he solves for the speed of light. So then he takes this longer distance and the time he measured it to take for it to travel and he gets the same answer for the speed of light. So then light has been seen to travel two different distances and comes out to be the same speed. They then compare their watches to find that the amount of time it took to reach across the experiment was different when Morley was in the car. So then they could both set up a right triangle to give their relation to the time that is experienced in the car and just sitting next to the experiment. But, this could get too confusing because I switched the observer at rest and the observer in motion, so I will stop here. But the point is mainly that the observer in motion wouldn't observe the results of this experiement to come out differently. In Einsteins world the experiment would have been seen to shoot the photon at an arc, but that wasn't the case. An observe in motion can't change the outcome of a MichealsonMorley experiment just by accelerating and looking at it from afar or by accelerating the experiment further. That is one of the main differences of my theory. 


#57
Mar812, 04:27 PM

P: 3,184




#58
Mar812, 04:43 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,686




#59
Mar812, 07:47 PM

P: 249

You guys are really no fun at all, I wasn't aware that physics forums was not to include anything about the scientific process. You need to go back to high school and relearn the first property of physics, I fear this is just going to be way over your head...



#60
Mar812, 07:54 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,027




#61
Mar812, 09:54 PM

P: 249

Okay, a pitcher throws a ball it takes 2s to reach the catcher. He threw the ball at 10m/s. How far is the catcher from the pitcher? (2s)(10m/s) = 20 meters The value for secounds cancels and then you are left with only the unit meters... 


#62
Mar812, 10:01 PM

P: 1,555




#63
Mar812, 10:19 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,686

But when Michelson's experiment emits a flash of light, how does he see it to know when that happened? When the light pulse hits the other end of the experiment, how does he see it to know when it arrived? He can only watch it with light, correct? So I need for you to tell me how he can factor out the light travel time from those two events so that he can get a meaningful measurement. 


#64
Mar912, 01:04 AM

P: 249

He could move an entanglement experiment next to the MichealsonMorley experiment and then put an atomic clock on the end of it. Then have a switch linked to both experiments so that it is the same distance to each. When the switch turns on it measures the entangled particle and turns on the MichealsonMorley experiment. The atomic clock would then have a detector to see when the photon reaches it, it then turns on when the other entangled particle changes it's spin from being measured on the other side. The atomic clock stops and read time when the photon reaches the detector. That would be a bunch of trouble just to find that a particle follows d=vt. I thought it should be a given. Or he could just shoot a photon at a piece of material that alters when hit and then time how long it takes it to do it, other way could be a lot of trouble. I thought they already have done this and should be a given. Like when they found the wave properties of light. Why does it take over a hundred years for everyone to know that it was measured to always travel at the same speed? Why would particles travel with anything other than their velocity? Is there some kind of particle velocity I have not heard about? Maybe you could try using my equation to find the velocity in respect to time and get the same answer as the velocity you originally put into it and find that the other equation doesn't. If v=v', then gamma will always cancel so then it doesn't matter if you used the equation for dialated time or not they will reduce to the same equations. Sounds like that should be something you should see wrong with accepted equation.



#65
Mar912, 01:22 AM

P: 249

I found one link to particle velocity but I don't think it applies here, because I said it was in a vacuum with no resistance. Laws of motion don't even take into account resistance anyways....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_velocity 


#66
Mar912, 01:26 AM

P: 249

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_acceleration
Here is another link, do these equations look familiar? 


#67
Mar912, 03:08 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,686

Gamma was proposed by scientists prior to Einstein as a way to explain how the measurement of light would always yield the same answer even though they thought light was only traveling at c in a fixed ether medium. So if the photon travels at a fixed speed with respect to the ether, that could cause the time for the photon to travel from the gun to the reflector to be shorter than the return trip or vice versa. 


#68
Mar912, 03:30 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,686




#69
Mar912, 04:34 PM

P: 249

Einstein found the two way speed of light just by adding the times it reached both clocks and dividing it by two, in no way does this imply that the speed of light in two directions is different. The MichealsonMorley experiment proves that the two way speed of light is the same as the one way even in different directions. In no way does the Einstein synhronisation imply that velocity is different. I still don't get why you have a problem with this. Pretend your Isaac Newton, you measure a ball to be shot across the room. You find that it always travels a distance vt. Now you check every other distance across the room that it could travel and you find that the distance equals vt in every case. So then you know that d=vt. Now say the photon is the same ball Newton was measuring. You measure the photon to travel the same distance according to d=vt, and then do this at different distances. You find it always travels at a constant speed no matter what distance it traveled, so then you know that d=vt is true. How could you have some other equation where light comes to the same speed and the distance it travles is not inversely related to that velocity? If it traveled at different speeds in different directions then the speed of light wouldn't be constant and MichealsonMorley would have had a whole different story. I think you should look into the experiment into further detail and not mind any mention of aether...
It also says on the two way speed of light that an equation that describes this is the lorentz transformations, well what I did was in effect solving for my own lorentz transformation. But the main difference being that my velocity is different so that the two way speed of light is equal to the one way speed of light. That was actually found by the experiment it comes from. Like I said before v doesn't equal the length contraction equation divided by the time dialation equation you can find this by putting a velcoity in both equations and then solving for length and time then useing that to find the velocity, it doesn't come out to be the same, but in my theory it does. So then my theory it says the two way speed of light is the same. 


#70
Mar912, 04:46 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,686




#71
Mar912, 07:45 PM

P: 249

I think even if I did give you references to that it wouldn't even matter, I am done talking to you. Google it and find out for yourself. How you question the michealsonmorley experiment as not proving that light travels the same speed when sent into different directions is just mind boggling.



#72
Mar912, 08:19 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,686

It was Einstein who came along later that postulated that in any state of inertial motion, you could define the oneway speed of light to be equal to the measured twoway speed of light, in other words, the light is defined to take the same amount of time to propagate from the single clock to the reflector as it takes to come back from the reflector to the clock. Einstein never started with two clocks located at either end of the experiment and measured the two times for the light to travel and then add them together to get the twoway speed of light. You have it backwards. You have a lot to learn and it's a shame you want to leave in this state of ignorance. I hope you will reconsider. I've invested many hours of my time to help you and I'd hate to see it go to waste. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
As you move away from a lightsource...  Introductory Physics Homework  4 