What happens in the restframe with lightsource?

John232

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 Michealson-Morley 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 Michealson-Morley 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.

ghwellsjr

Can you show me a reputable reference for this?
Can you show me a reputable reference for this?
Until you show me the two references I asked for, nothing else in your post matters.

John232

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 michealson-morley experiment as not proving that light travels the same speed when sent into different directions is just mind boggling.

ghwellsjr

MMX concluded that the two-way speed of light is the same in all directions. It said nothing about the one-way speed of light. The scientists of the day, especially Lorentz concluded that the length of the arm traveling along the direction of the ether was contracted which gave the illusion that the two-way speed of light was the same as in the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion through the ether.

It was Einstein who came along later that postulated that in any state of inertial motion, you could define the one-way speed of light to be equal to the measured two-way 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 two-way 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.

John232

Finally, you state that you actually know something about physics. So why ask me, if you already know? Is there a point to all this? If you can prove that you can't measure the distance a photon has traveled, then you would have proved that relativity itself is wrong because it does the same thing. So then what makes you think you can disprove 100 years of accepted physics? I find it upsetting to work hard in thinking about how to solve many of the problems faced in physics and then find an answer, just to have someone insult me the whole time about it. I tried as hard as I could to explain it well enough to make someone else understand it, but apperently it takes two geniuses to create new science, one to figure it out and another to say yes that is right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronization

He finds that you can add time 1 and time two and multiply it by one half. This only takes the average of the two times. Like you would find the avearge velocity in newtons equations, for this to be true the velocity would have had to have been the same both ways. It is just a lot ado about nothing. It would be like telling Isaac Newton that his theory's of motion didn't mean anything because he can't prove that it works the same both ways...
According to Albert Einstein's prescription from 1905, a light signal is sent at time from clock 1 to clock 2 and immediately back, e.g. by means of a mirror. Its arrival time back at clock 1 is . This synchronisation convention sets clock 2 so that the time of signal reflection is .[1]

John232

Come to think of it I can beleive Einstein had this same discussion.....

Maybe it could mean something...

John232

Maybe they had to have this same discussion because he didn't get the same value for velocity!

John232

I think the only way someone could depict a more accurate theory using this method of algebra, would be to consider the coordinate system of a photon traveling at the speed of light. But, in the equations length and time would be contracted to zero. In another coordinate frame their would exist real distance. The problem is that these two coordinate systems do not agree with each other. In one the triangle would have a side with the length of zero (it would no longer form a triangle), and in the other it would have some other real value. Then you would have to find the relation between these two system so that in some way they agree on the speed of light, even though one of those planes was fully contracted. I don't think there is a way it can be done mathematically as we know it, but it may be possible to describe the length along with quantum uncertainty in some other way.

ghwellsjr

The point of these forums is to teach people who want to learn physics. I didn't make that rule but I follow it.
I never said you couldn't measure the distance a photon travels, where'd you get that idea? I just said in post #67:
Huh??? Why do you think I'm trying to disprove 100 years of accepted physics? I'm trying to help you learn it. You're the one that wants to publish your own theory of Special Relativity, not me. I'm trying to dissuade you from that endeavor. Einstein is pretty much accepted as a genius by a great many other people that I would also consider to geniuses. What other geniuses are you talking about here? Do you see yourself in the role of a genius creating new science? Is that why you want to publish your own theory of Special Relativity?
Yes, the wiki article does not say that Einstein is measuring the time it takes for the light to go from clock 1 to clock 2 as you have been claiming. Rather it says τ₁ is the time on clock 1 at the start of the light pulse and τ₂ is the time on the same clock 1, not clock 2, after it has been reflected back, in other words, he is measuring the round-trip time of the light pulse. He also records the time on clock 2 when the light was reflected. Then he calculates the average of those two times measured on clock 1 and sees how far off the recorded time on clock 2 was from the average. He makes an adjustment to clock 2 (this is where he sets the time on clock 2). Now clock 2 should be synchronized to clock 1. If he repeats the experiment and if he did everything right the first time, then the second time, clock 2 should display the average of the two times on clock1 and he can now say, by definition--not by measurement, that the time it takes for light to go from clock 1 to clock 2 equals the time it takes for the light to go from clock 2 to clock 1. You should not think of the process of synchronization as a way to discover the truth about the speed of light but rather as a way of creating truth about the speed of light.
It's not much ado about nothing. It's the foundation of Special Relativity and without Einstein's insight into the fact that until and unless you create the meaning of the time on clock 2, it can have no meaning. After he makes that definition, then you can conclude that the light takes the same amount of time to go both directions but only in that one frame of reference for which the definition holds true. In another frame of reference with its own application of the definition, the time it takes for light to get from clock 1 to clock 2 is not the same as it is for the light to get back from clock 2 to clock 1.
This is incomplete so I don't know what you are saying here.

But the bottom line is that anytime you want to measure how long it takes for light to go from point A to point B with two different clocks, you have to first synchronize those two clocks via round-trip light signals that are assumed to travel at the same speed in both directions and therefore take the same time in both directions, then, of course, you will "measure" the speed of light to be the same in both directions, how could it be otherwise?

This whole discussion is a result of your rejection of the wikipedia article on time dilation in its explanation of a light clock based on Einstein's definition of remote time in a Frame of Reference and the constant speed of light, and your insistence that there was a better way in which you could measure the one-way speed of light apart from previously defining it.

John232

I read a book a long time ago, don't recal what one it was, but it said that the writer new about the instance where Einstein's theory was rejected by a particle physisist and the theory didn't work out with what they found in the experiment. They then had an argument about it because there was no clear way to define how someone could know that Newtonian physics still applied to quantum mechanics. It really started to make me wonder if you where that same guy because of the insidious questions about newtonian physics. If so I apoligize if you ended up getting in a argument with both of us. But, i think he may have passed away, don't remember exactly who that was.

I guess the wiki claims that any type of lorentz transform theory would not follow the two way speed of light, but I think mine can because I derived gamma differently. The equations for velocity would not change if the value's canceled so in effect the equations that deal with velocity could stay the same, but then someone could calculate how long a particle lived by finding the amount of time dialation it experienced while under acceleration. Also the effects of gravity are negligible so it is not included in my theory yet, also it would work accurately for sure for any experiment done on Earth since the conditions of the observer would be guarnteed to be the same as the Michealson-Morley experiment with the case that an observer traveling relative to the MMX would detect the outcome to come out differently. I also think that the relation itself just does not exist anymore for an object traveling at the speed of light, since the triangle itself no longer exist. So if the photons frame of reference is in no way related to an observer at rest, then any value we find in our frame would not affect any value in the photons frame.

DaleSpam

Personal theories are not permitted topics on Physics Forums.

Photons do not have a frame of reference:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511170

DaleSpam

This assumes that the postulates of relativity apply to non-inertial frames, which is wrong.

John232

I don't think it does. A non-inertial frame would not have a length (vt), so then instead of being able to insert c as the velocity, you would have to say that the triangle does not exist so that you can't obtain an answer as zero for the formula to work. So then going back to the inital question of does the distance light travel equal its velocity times time would be yes, because of the nature of the algebra itself. So then Δt=t√(1-(vi+vo)/4c^2) would only be true if vi≠c and vo≠c. That agrees with the intial assumption that the distance the photon travled is the same of the newtonian equation d=vt.

I will stop here, I guess i would have to ask where I could be redirected to where these topics could be discussed?

John232

How does a theory become accepted by physics forums?

DaleSpam

I wouldn't say that it doesn't exist, just that light doesn't travel in a straight line in terms of non inertial coordinates.

DaleSpam

Read the rules link at the top of each page. It has to be published in the mainstream scientific literature.

John232

So then wouldn't that mean that the MMX wasn't in a non inertial frame, but was actually in an inertial frame because the outcome of the experiment showed that light beams sent in two different directions ended up haveing their wavelengths match up as though one beam had not traveled a longer distance than the other when they split up?

The mainstream literature I read on it suggest that the experiment actually was in a non-inertial frame and that the beam did travel in a straight line, and that Einstein himself didn't base his theory on that experiment, but the experiment itself is always mentioned in physics literature.