
#73
Mar1012, 01:35 AM

P: 249

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] 



#74
Mar1012, 02:07 AM

P: 249

Come to think of it I can beleive Einstein had this same discussion.....
Maybe it could mean something... 



#75
Mar1012, 02:11 AM

P: 249

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




#76
Mar1012, 09:05 AM

P: 249

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.




#77
Mar1012, 11:37 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,518

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 roundtrip 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 oneway speed of light apart from previously defining it. 



#78
Mar1012, 06:59 PM

P: 249

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 MichealsonMorley 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. 



#79
Mar1012, 07:16 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511170 



#80
Mar1012, 07:19 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#81
Mar1012, 08:54 PM

P: 249

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



#82
Mar1012, 09:31 PM

P: 249

How does a theory become accepted by physics forums?




#83
Mar1012, 09:50 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#84
Mar1012, 09:52 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#85
Mar1012, 11:05 PM

P: 249

The mainstream literature I read on it suggest that the experiment actually was in a noninertial 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. 



#86
Mar1112, 06:13 AM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#87
Mar1112, 06:29 AM

P: 249

How could MMX not be in a inertial frame according to general relativity if there is acceleration of the rotation/revolutions of Earth? Putting gravity aside, you would think that since the theory predicts that a photon would propogate at a curve if the experiment was only accelerating at a different velocity. So how then can MMX get the result it did and still be in accordence with the general theory?




#88
Mar1112, 06:54 AM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#89
Mar1112, 09:34 PM

P: 249





#90
Mar1212, 05:53 AM

P: 3,178

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author...aham_Michelson Apparently you are making statements about his papers of 1881 and 1887. 


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