Creating a Target with 3 Photons in SR Propagating Sphere of Light

[Reff]

Yes, we can see that the red man is not in the center of the blue sphere but he cannot see that. He has exactly the same experience as the green man. The only difference between them is that the green man sees the red man moving to his left and the red man sees the green man moving to his right.

Yes I absolutely, agree, that we can see the red man is NOT in the center of the blue sphere and as you say--"but he cannot see that" That is what it is all about, I use this assymetry for direct calculation of his frames time dilation. Who cares what green and red men think is happening when they are ignoring the big picture and experiencing an abberation

I think what you are saying is that as we watch the progress of a photon moving "downward" from the red man's moving position, it will appear to us that it is traveling at c along a diagonal, and we could say that it represents a legitimate photon in the green man's experience but from the red man's point of view we would have to say that it is traveling much slower than c because it is taking so much longer to get down to the mirror below him. But remember, time is going slower for the red man so from his point of view when he calculates the speed of the photon (if he could possibly know where it was), then he would believe that it was actually traveling at c.

Absolutely, I think you are beginning to understand the geometry, and yes the photon is taking longer to reach a mirror and yes he will measure c because he has no option but to do so. Every movement in red mans frame is directly in proportion to the crossing---- diagonal photon. No photon can cross faster because it would violate our only constant c. Try crossing one. Every single photon in red mans and green mans frames-- is moving radialy at c from the center of the blue sphere so who cares where any frame of any direction is within the sphere unless you wish to calculate its time dilation.

I use a general purpose program (LabVIEW) that is not specific to animation so it is a lot of work for me to produce these animations. I then use a screen capture utility (CamStudio) to make an avi that I can upload to YouTube.

Smart and neat.

I have presented these animations from the point of view of LET which assumes an absolute ether rest state. I have not talked about frames at all. I don't know why you keep talking about frames when you believe in an absolute rest. What I'm trying to point out to you is that even from the viewpoint of LET and a single absolute ether rest state in which is c is constant and only in which c is constant, as long as you believe that an inertially moving observer will also measure the round-trip speed of light to be c (like in the real world), which you say you do because you agreed that my animations illustrate how both men will think they are in the center of the expanding sphere of light, then you can follow the interpretation of LET which assumes the actual real existence of an absolute ether rest state. In LET, the moving observer experiences time dilation and length contraction along the direction of motion through the ether. LET affirms that the green man is really stationary in the ether and the red man is really moving through the ether but it also affirms that the red man experiences everything the same way the green man does. In other words, the red man has every reason to believe that he is the one that is stationary in the ether and that it is the green man who is moving through the ether and exeriencing time dilation and length contraction and whose photons are bouncing off his mirrors at different times and whose photons are slowed down in some cases and speeded up in others.

Yes, look I have a confusing ramble and use incorrect terminology on occasion which many quite rightly find confusing but on my side I have a raw unrefined view of relativity, not too bad at geometry and I worked it out myself and it works out fine. I was convinced on geometry alone and further so when a little maths also worked and even further so when it could be drawn precisely to scale.
I talk about frames as being a specific speed of an individual observer ie red mans and green mans as frames. and yes your green man is at absolute rest.
While I think about it-- green mans tabletop photon crosses at c and he can use any photon within his sphere to make a direct crossing of his table------ NO diagonal----NO intersection means no time dilation and thus an absolute time clock which will measure a non intersecting -- straight trajectory photon at c but at-- absolute rest . He will experience and believe the same as any other frame trying measuring c.

So the question is: how can the green man prove that he really is stationary in the ether, even if he is. How can he tell? How can the red man prove that he is moving in the ether, even if he is? If the red man wants to believe that he is stationary in the ether, even if he isn't, how could the green man prove that he is wrong? How could you prove that he is wrong?

Now there is a question to ponder but perhaps sometime in the future it may be done with clocks or interference patterns or sagnac or light shift --etc etc
I did read a while ago about "the impossibility of measuring the speed of light" mmmmmm
may be a message in that.

Remember, I said that the only difference between what the two men are experiencing is which direction the other one is traveling. Do you believe that

Yes I do believe that as long as it is said that they "believe" that too.

 

[Dale]

I am thinking right now that your maths is impressive but I am not to sure we are understanding each other.

I am pretty sure that you are not understanding me, but after your posting the drawings I am confident that I am understanding you. Even if you cannot understand the math you can at least look at the equations in the different frames and see that they are essentially the same.

Now, am I to believe a sphere made up of the only constant in the universe c, ie any radius in the sphere, and thus its perfect symetry is superceded by red mans belief. Red man in 200mm at .999c is not at the center of the sphere

In his frame he IS at the center and green man is not.

So what makes green man's frame correct and red man's frame incorrect in your opinion? Simply because we chose to draw green man's frame? If so, then any frame is the absolute rest frame as long as we choose to draw it. Is that what you really want?

I think that the problem is that you don't even understand what "absolute rest" means. There are millions of ways to determine whether or not two things are moving relative to each other, and so far that is all any of your geometry has demonstrated. In order to experimentally determine if something is at absolute rest you need to perform an experiment where the identical experiment performed in different frames gives different results. That is simply not possible under the known laws of physics.

 

[ghwellsjr]

So the question is: how can the green man prove that he really is stationary in the ether, even if he is. How can he tell? How can the red man prove that he is moving in the ether, even if he is? If the red man wants to believe that he is stationary in the ether, even if he isn't, how could the green man prove that he is wrong? How could you prove that he is wrong?

Now there is a question to ponder but perhaps sometime in the future it may be done with clocks or interference patterns or sagnac or light shift --etc etc
I did read a while ago about "the impossibility of measuring the speed of light" mmmmmm
may be a message in that.

Reff--this is the future.

I'm sure your read that it's impossible to measure the one-way speed of light. That just means that it's impossible to measure a state of absolute ether rest. Or to put it another way, any measurement that either man makes will lead him to believe that he is the one at rest in the absolute ether and the other one is moving through it. It's only when each man realizes that the other man has the same experience that they begin to realize that neither one of them can make an exclusive claim about an absolute ether rest state.

Remember, I said that the only difference between what the two men are experiencing is which direction the other one is traveling. Do you believe that?

Yes I do believe that as long as it is said that they "believe" that too.

Assuming that they do, which do you believe you are, the green man or the red man?

 

[Reff]

=ghwellsjr;3446671]Reff--this is the future.

Are you serious

 

[ghwellsjr]

Reff, this is at least the second time you have mentioned the Sagnac effect as something that might identify an absolute ether rest state and those experiments were done a centure ago. The Sagnac effect is used in inertial guidance systems to measure rotational acceleration. Accelerations are absolute, not relative. This has nothing to do with identifying an absolute rest state. Both Special and General Relativity have passed every test that is thrown at them and they always pass with flying colors. How many more centuries do you think it will take before some experiment will prove them wrong?

But that's beside the point. You have been taking a different position in this thread, which is that right now, you know a way to prove that an absolute rest state exists, even if you cannot locate it. Your position has been that if photons travel at c in one frame of reference, those same photons cannot travel at c in another frame of reference moving with respect to the first one, correct?

 

[JDoolin]

Is the purpose of your diagram to graphically determine the time dilation factor as a function of speed? Would this diagram, where I called the time dilation factor "age" work? At a speed of .8c the time dilation is .6:

I never noticed that the equation for time dilation factor was so... circular.

 

[JDoolin]

I believe we have established that a sphere of photons from a zero time event is---Not frame dependent---
Now when I ask you where the right angle photon originated from in a moving frame, you then make it---- frame dependent---.

I believe you cannot have it both ways to suit.

Oh, it is both ways, exactly. The sphere is not frame dependent, but the angles ARE frame dependent. The angles are frame dependent even in Galilean relativity. If I throw an object off a truck, it will appear to be going at a different angle than you would see it if you were standing still.

By the way, I could have done similar animations for 0.999c but you don't have a screen large enough and with enough resolution for the animation to make any sense. And you wouldn't have the patience to watch those animations, as they take a very long time.

I have a flash demo that let's you set the speed up to .99c if that helps.

http://www.wiu.edu/users/jdd109/stuff/relativity/Circle.swf

and another one which sort of demonstrates the angle question:

http://www.wiu.edu/users/jdd109/stuff/relativity/gardner.swf

I just want to say to gh, though: I didn't realize that you had made those animations before you saw mine! (I didn't see that you had made similar animations until this afternoon.) It is a good thing when two people independently come up with the same results.

 

[JDoolin]

I have presented these animations from the point of view of LET which assumes an absolute ether rest state. I have not talked about frames at all.

On further thought, what are you saying here? I'm not entirely certain what the LET idea entails. Does LET assume an absolute ether rest state, or an observer dependent rest state? Or, regardless, don't your animations suggest observer dependence, rather than any absolute nature of the spacetime?

Or are you just saying that there is no detectable difference between the two?

 

[JDoolin]

It's only when each man realizes that the other man has the same experience that they begin to realize that neither one of them can make an exclusive claim about an absolute ether rest state.

Assuming that they do, which do you believe you are, the green man or the red man?

Ahh, I see. You came back to it. How very dialectical of you!

 

[Reff]

Both Special and General Relativity have passed every test that is thrown at them and they always pass with flying colors. How many more centuries do you think it will take before some experiment will prove them wrong?

Sorry I have been slow
Any theory should be able to withstand any amount of challenge and retain its integrity, no matter how long the theory is generaly acceptable, rather like the flat Earth society time v integrity, or the Earth being the center of all things, time v integrity or us being the only galaxy in the universe.
Are you suggesting time gives a theory integrity then I absolutely disagree.
I believe you are ignoring some of the facts here including some of the evolution of SR.
If we go back to the 20s when the formation of Lorentz was proposed, do we not find many pysicists hard at work trying to find a purely mechanical interpretation of SR laws
and in that process had many problems. Now I say that if a mechanical theory were introduced at the same time as Lorentz and the man himself ( Einstein) were to make an assessment of both--
which one would Einstein himself have chosen
During his consideration of two theories would he have debunked the mechanical by using elements of the Lorentz theory.--- I don't think so
Would Einstein have been impressed by the Lorentz theory formulated on " substracting from the aether its mechanical and from matter its electromagnetic qualities" as having any form of validity. ----I don't think so
Lorentz formulated a theory that cannot be challenged if we use the time v validity formula
Without using the Lorentz rabbit can you prove that absolute rest does not exist.
How about using the sort of logical thinking that Einstein would have used against a mechanical SR theory, to say one will never exist closes an open mind.

 

[Reff]

I am pretty sure that you are not understanding me, but after your posting the drawings I am confident that I am understanding you. Even if you cannot understand the math you can at least look at the equations in the different frames and see that they are essentially the same.

In his frame he IS at the center and green man is not.

So what makes green man's frame correct and red man's frame incorrect in your opinion? Simply because we chose to draw green man's frame? If so, then any frame is the absolute rest frame as long as we choose to draw it. Is that what you really want?

I think that the problem is that you don't even understand what "absolute rest" means. There are millions of ways to determine whether or not two things are moving relative to each other, and so far that is all any of your geometry has demonstrated. In order to experimentally determine if something is at absolute rest you need to perform an experiment where the identical experiment performed in different frames gives different results. That is simply not possible under the known laws of physics.

Hi DaleSpam
Sorry I have been slow to respond.
Yes I do see the belief of red and green men being at the center but just in a "belief" sense.
Please have a look at my non geometric post number 101.
I am pleased that you understand my geometry even if you do not agree. Can I just remind you of an address by Einstein himself in the 20s when he made the statement

"The aether must be in the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid but only in a solid. Thus physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of a quasi ridgid luminiferous aether"

Now if you understand my geometry, you will be able to see from my point of view at least, that in that statement there is a fundamental mistake. I have mentioned this in a previous post. I believe you did not relate the geometry to it at that time but now you can see how it works.
Now the many physicists of that time were out to design a mechanical theory, influenced by that very transverse wave belief.
Without going back into explaining the geometry, you should now see how I believe transverse waves are formed.
If it were proved that absolute rest does exist would you drop Lorentz.
If Einstein had two papers to assess at the time of Lorentz and the mechanical theory worked fine, Lorentz would have been dropped.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Sorry I have been slow
Any theory should be able to withstand any amount of challenge and retain its integrity, no matter how long the theory is generaly acceptable, rather like the flat Earth society time v integrity, or the Earth being the center of all things, time v integrity or us being the only galaxy in the universe.
Are you suggesting time gives a theory integrity then I absolutely disagree.
I believe you are ignoring some of the facts here including some of the evolution of SR.
If we go back to the 20s when the formation of Lorentz was proposed, do we not find many pysicists hard at work trying to find a purely mechanical interpretation of SR laws
and in that process had many problems. Now I say that if a mechanical theory were introduced at the same time as Lorentz and the man himself ( Einstein) were to make an assessment of both--
which one would Einstein himself have chosen
During his consideration of two theories would he have debunked the mechanical by using elements of the Lorentz theory.--- I don't think so
Would Einstein have been impressed by the Lorentz theory formulated on " substracting from the aether its mechanical and from matter its electromagnetic qualities" as having any form of validity. ----I don't think so
Lorentz formulated a theory that cannot be challenged if we use the time v validity formula
Without using the Lorentz rabbit can you prove that absolute rest does not exist.
How about using the sort of logical thinking that Einstein would have used against a mechanical SR theory, to say one will never exist closes an open mind.

Lorentz's Ether Theory was developed prior to Einstein's Special Relativity. The two theories are mutually compatible with each other. They make the same predictions and they use the same formulas and equations. It is not possible to prove one correct and the other incorrect. They stand or fall together. It is not possible to choose one over the other based on any measureable or observable criterion. You can neither prove nor disprove that an absolute rest exists. It is purely a philosophical choice. If one of the theories is correct, then the other one must also be correct. In fact, if the Theory of Special Relativity is correct, in the sense that it accurately describes reality, then that alone proves that it is impossible to prove that an absolute ether rest frame cannot exist. The reason is that any arbitrary Frame of Reference that you choose to select will have all the characteristics of an absolute ether rest state. On the other hand, if Lorentz Ether Theory is correct, in the sense that it accurately describes reality, then that alone proves that it is impossible to prove that an absolute ether rest state must exist. If any measurement could identify an absolute ether rest state, then both theories would have to be abandoned.

Einstein was well aware of his choice between LET and SR and his argument was that if there is no measurement that can identify an absolute ether rest state, then the concept is useless. It's a matter of choosing the simpler theory because if you want to claim that there exists an absolute ether rest state, then you should, for consistency's sake, identify one by edict and do all your mathematics in that one frame.

 

[JDoolin]

Without using the Lorentz rabbit can you prove that absolute rest does not exist.

The point is, if Maxwell's equations are correct, (and by corollary, the wave equation,) and the Principle of Relativity is also correct, then the only way to resolve the two is by using the Lorentz Transformations. As far as I know, there is no other way.

If you want to discard the Principle of Relativity, or Maxwell's equations, it would also be appropriate for you to come up with some experiment where one of those two things is obviously broken.

As far as I can tell, you are not producing any such physical experiment but are instead producing a thought experiment where a priori you're assuming that one or the other is broken.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using thought experiments; the advantage is that you can illustrate whether an idea is self-consistent or not. The disadvantage is that it doesn't necessarily model reality.

 

[Reff]

Hi J Doolin
You have come in cold on this one but you seem to be well versed and have some interest.

QUOTE]JDoolin;3449101]Oh, it is both ways, exactly. The sphere is not frame dependent, but the angles ARE frame dependent. The angles are frame dependent even in Galilean relativity. If I throw an object off a truck, it will appear to be going at a different angle than you would see it if you were standing still. [/QUOTE]

I do believe your statement here but I am a fan of absolute rest, so presuming you are willing to discus that effect --

For a while in your first animation could you drop the mirrors and just look at the symetry of propagation and the point of sphere generation. I am just interested in the sphere and that it can be concentricaly generated by a frame moving at any speed and any direction. The point which generated the sphere must be somewhere within the sphere. This is my not frame dependent. If all moving frame events are created concentricaly to that point concentric to the first event, will they propagate concentricaly, I think so.
Now if we look at photons generated within the sphere, ie radial from the event, right out to the edge of the sphere, then I absolutely agree that the radial lines formed by the track of the photons and their interface with a moving frame are also frame dependent.
If we go back to the propagating sphere and put in a frame of .999c and allow it to propagate 1km I believe contrary to Lorentz that the frame is no longer at the center of propagation, irrespective of the frame observers belief. The frame has moved 999mtrs along the trajectory of the photon heading in the same direction of the frame. This is where I understand Lorentz is saying the frame is at the center of propagation and thus frame dependent. I don't see this but yes the interface in photon angles is a very relevant frame dependent.
Your animation which moves up to .999c is great but it does not show what I need to know and that is, after say 1km of sphere propagation, and without mirrors, the .999c frame creates a second event to indicate that he is still at the center of the first sphere. so is he?

 

[Reff]

if you want to claim that there exists an absolute ether rest state, then you should, for consistency's sake, identify one by edict and do all your mathematics in that one frame.

[/QUOTE]
Yes for sure, been there done that, the maths work fine. -- all based on that point between two opposite photons.

 

[ghwellsjr]

if you want to claim that there exists an absolute ether rest state, then you should, for consistency's sake, identify one by edict and do all your mathematics in that one frame.

Yes for sure, been there done that, the maths work fine. -- all based on that point between two opposite photons.

So what is the velocity of the Earth right now traveling through the absolute ether rest state?

 

[JDoolin]

Hi J Doolin
You have come in cold on this one but you seem to be well versed and have some interest.

I do believe your statement here but I am a fan of absolute rest, so presuming you are willing to discus that effect --

I am coming in "cold" on this as you say, because I'm not entirely sure what idea your missing. Naturally, if I want to know about an absolute rest theory I might look for articles by Ptolemy, Aristotle, or even Thomas Aquinas.

Perhaps, you are a fan of some absolute rest frame should be geocentric, heliocentric, or galactic-centric, or even "at rest with respect to the cosmic background."

Or you may be a fan of the idea that events that are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in all frames (You would share that notion with a lot of experts, who should know better, I'm afraid.)

Or you may simply be a fan of LET; that there IS some absolute rest frame, but we have absolutely no way of detecting what it is.

If we go back to the propagating sphere and put in a frame of .999c and allow it to propagate 1km I believe contrary to Lorentz that the frame is no longer at the center of propagation, irrespective of the frame observers belief. The frame has moved 999mtrs along the trajectory of the photon heading in the same direction of the frame. This is where I understand Lorentz is saying the frame is at the center of propagation and thus frame dependent. I don't see this but yes the interface in photon angles is a very relevant frame dependent.
Your animation which moves up to .999c is great but it does not show what I need to know and that is, after say 1km of sphere propagation, and without mirrors, the .999c frame creates a second event to indicate that he is still at the center of the first sphere. so is he?

It depends on which reference frame you're watching from. You have this guy traveling at .999c. From our reference frame a 1000/(3*10^8)=3.33*10^-6 sec have passed, and he appears to be at the very edge of the sphere. From his reference frame, multiply that amount of time by sqrt(1-.999^2)=.0447; a very small number, but he will appear at the center of a sphere that is 44.7 meters across when he creates the second event. So for him, the sphere is only around 159 light nanoseconds across (47.7 meters)

You can map the first event, for example, to (t=0,x=0) and the latter event to (t=159 nanoseconds,x=0)

Do the Lorentz Transformation on these events, with v/c=.999 and you'll see the first one stays at (0,0) while the other one moves to (t'=3330 nanoseconds, x'=999 meters).

 

[JDoolin]

For a while in your first animation could you drop the mirrors and just look at the symetry of propagation and the point of sphere generation.

...

Your animation which moves up to .999c is great but it does not show what I need to know and that is, after say 1km of sphere propagation, and without mirrors, the .999c frame creates a second event to indicate that he is still at the center of the first sphere. so is he?

I have a flash demo that let's you set the speed up to .99c if that helps.

http://www.wiu.edu/users/jdd109/stuff/relativity/Circle.swf

Go all the way to the end of the demo, then hit the back-button FOUR times. Then you can see the position of the initial and final event and you can see the circles expanding without the effect of the mirror.

 

[Reff]

So what is the velocity of the Earth right now traveling through the absolute ether rest state?

I have no idea ghwellsjr. There have been observations confirmed after claims.

 

[Reff]

Go all the way to the end of the demo, then hit the back-button FOUR times. Then you can see the position of the initial and final event and you can see the circles expanding without the effect of the mirror.

Hi JDoolan
Yes nice animation and yes I saw the hidden lines.
You may understand that I have a different view than most so I hope you are ok with that.
The initial hidden line sphere is the one I am interested in. The propagation of photons from the event and nothing returning-- just that one sphere.
I understand Lorentz frames all believe they are at the center of the sphere and I can see that reflected light does indeed return to the emittor but using just the initial propagation to say 1km and at that instant the .999c frame signals his position within the sphere-- he is not concentric to it, even if he believes he is. If we take a moving frame with mirrors, the moment photons hit any mirror, we make the frame signal once again, he is still not the center of propagation. What I presently believe in is absolute rest which to me is the center of the emitted propagating sphere. What would you define that as.
I am not sure what sychronisation is. I presume the re integration of the returning sphere.

 

[Dale]

Yes I do see the belief of red and green men being at the center but just in a "belief" sense.

Do you believe that there is any experimental way for the green man to prove that he is at rest or the red man to prove that he is moving? Please answer this question clearly even if you choose not to respond to the rest of this post.

Now if you understand my geometry, you will be able to see from my point of view at least, that in that statement there is a fundamental mistake.

The quote is completely irrelevant to your geometry. What does any of your geometry have to do with the fact that light can be polarized?

If it were proved that absolute rest does exist would you drop Lorentz.

Immediately, because the Lorentz transform is not compatible with an experimentally detectable absolute rest.

Yes for sure, been there done that, the maths work fine.

No, the math has disproved you completely at every step of the way. Nothing you have claimed is logically sound as I have demonstrated mathematically multiple times.

 

[JDoolin]

Hi JDoolan
Yes nice animation and yes I saw the hidden lines.
You may understand that I have a different view than most so I hope you are ok with that.

I don't mind you having an opinion or beliefs. Opinions on scientific subjects vary from "This is boring" to "This is interesting." Your opinion can motivate you to continue studying, or to throw up your hands and give up (or allow you to change to a book that makes more sense to you). Beliefs range from "This can't be right" to "This has to be right." So long as you realize that your belief in something does not affect whether or not it occurs in reality, in fact I think you should argue what you believe until someone convinces you otherwise, (so long as you argue fairly.)

I understand Lorentz frames all believe they are at the center of the sphere and I can see that reflected light does indeed return to the emittor but using just the initial propagation to say 1km and at that instant the .999c frame signals his position within the sphere-- he is not concentric to it, even if he believes he is.

I would say you have a confusion distinguishing between "belief" and "frame dependence."

The man does not "believe" he is at the center of the sphere, based on some unfounded faith in the Lorentz Transformations. He IS at the center of the sphere, based on all data he he has available to him. (So long as the man doesn't go and collect the data from some guy in some other reference frame, and then Lorentz Transform it to see what it should look like in his frame.) Instead, he uses instruments in his own possession; camera's namely. He "believes" he is the center of the sphere because he IS at the center of the sphere.

I am not sure what sychronisation is. I presume the re integration of the returning sphere.

That's not what I meant by synchronization.

"Desynchronization" is the effect whereby the events that appear to happen simultaneously on the train, appear to happen back to front, when oberved by someone watching the train go by.

"Desynchronization" was a term that I wanted to popularize to replace "the relativity of simultaneity" back when I wrote the demonstration. The basic idea is that if you accelerate, the events in front of the Rindler Horizon move forward in time, and the events behind the Rindler Horizon go back in time. Of course, when I made the demo, I had no idea what the Rindler Horizon was, and in any case, if you are doing instantaneous acceleration, you are at the Rindler Horizon, anyway.

I thought of another aspect to this argument which might be confusing you. You are interested in the outbound sphere, propagating at the speed of light. There is a difficulty with picking out events on this sphere and lorentz transforming them, because technially,there is nothing "happening" at those points in space-time. So the simultaneous events making up a circle in one reference frame will not become a circle after Lorentz Transformation. Instead, they will become an ellipse in space-time (back end in th past, front end in the future.)

To see that the circle remained a circle, you must select a new set of events; those events which are simultaneous in the new reference frame.

 

[JDoolin]

So the simultaneous events making up a circle in one reference frame will not become a circle after Lorentz Transformation. Instead, they will become an ellipse in space-time (back end in th past, front end in the future.)

To see that the circle remained a circle, you must select a new set of events; those events which are simultaneous in the new reference frame.

I wanted to give you a picture of what I'm picturing (click on the thumbnail). How is it possible that the man in the sphere is in the center of the circle, when he's not at the center of the circle?

The thing is, he is still at the center of any set of simultaneous events on the lightcone, regardless of reference frame;(simultaneity is frame-dependent). Its just that that set of another frame's simultaneous events form an ellipse in space-time rather than a circle in space.

The image comes from a screen-capture of: http://www.wiu.edu/users/jdd109/swf/twodimension.htm (Though I made this demo, and would stand by it for being technically correct, it is overcomplicated in using four transformations, when one will do. On the other hand, I would defend it as an independent derivation of the LT's since every transformation is made with good reason.)

 

[JDoolin]

Einstein was well aware of his choice between LET and SR and his argument was that if there is no measurement that can identify an absolute ether rest state, then the concept is useless. It's a matter of choosing the simpler theory because if you want to claim that there exists an absolute ether rest state, then you should, for consistency's sake, identify one by edict and do all your mathematics in that one frame.

Am I understanding the difference between these two theories accurately? That LET is the theory that there is some absolute reference frame, but it's indistinguishable from the others? And SR is that there is no absolute reference frame, but all observations are observer dependent?

It seems like you're taking the LET idea very seriously, but I can't figure out what is the point? When the two ideas are indistinguishable in practice, I don't understand how Einstein's choice has any relevance to anyone except for Einstein. (unless he actually decided on LET, that is, and did identify by edict a unique absolute rest frame; which he may well have, given the current state of modern cosmology.)

 

[ghwellsjr]

Am I understanding the difference between these two theories accurately? That LET is the theory that there is some absolute reference frame, but it's indistinguishable from the others? And SR is that there is no absolute reference frame, but all observations are observer dependent?

It seems like you're taking the LET idea very seriously, but I can't figure out what is the point? When the two ideas are indistinguishable in practice, I don't understand how Einstein's choice has any relevance to anyone except for Einstein. (unless he actually decided on LET, that is, and did identify by edict a unique absolute rest frame; which he may well have, given the current state of modern cosmology.)

The point is that LET believers (everyone prior to Einstein) assumed that there existed an absolute ether rest state in which absolute time and absolute space (distances and lengths) existed and only in that state is the one-way speed of light equal to c in all directions. They explained the null result of trying to identify this absolute rest state in any experiment by assuming that their own clocks were running slow and the own rulers were shortened, even if they didn't know by how much. Einstein, took a different approach which is to say that there is no absolute ether rest state, no absolute time and no absolute space but every inertial observer could assume that they were at rest in what would have all the characteristics of an absolute ether rest state with absolute time and absolute space and in which the one-way speed of light was c, and that everyone else moving with respect to them had their rulers contracted and clocks running slow.

 

[JDoolin]

The point is that LET believers (everyone prior to Einstein) assumed that there existed an absolute ether rest state in which absolute time and absolute space (distances and lengths) existed and only in that state is the one-way speed of light equal to c in all directions. They explained the null result of trying to identify this absolute rest state in any experiment by assuming that their own clocks were running slow and the own rulers were shortened, even if they didn't know by how much. Einstein, took a different approach which is to say that there is no absolute ether rest state, no absolute time and no absolute space but every inertial observer could assume that they were at rest in what would have all the characteristics of an absolute ether rest state with absolute time and absolute space and in which the one-way speed of light was c, and that everyone else moving with respect to them had their rulers contracted and clocks running slow.

Ah, okay. Yes, I would definitely side with Einstein in that case.
Since LET and SR are mathematically and physically identical, it remains only an opinion which one you prefer. It is my opinion the idea of relative rest is straightforward while the idea of absolute rest is cumbersome. (and ambiguous if you cannot declare explicitly on which frame is the absolute rest frame)

I am a fan of absolute rest, so presuming you are willing to discus that effect --

Having discussed that effect, I find I am definitely a fan of relative rest. But I'm choosing relative rest based on a specific rubric that practicality and straightforwardness are "good" things.

 

[Reff]

Do you believe that there is any experimental way for the green man to prove that he is at rest or the red man to prove that he is moving? Please answer this question clearly even if you choose not to respond to the rest of this post.

Hi DaleSpam.
For sure I believe that there is an experimental way to prove green man is at rest which has not been devised as yet just the same evolution of the facts re flat earth, sun rotating around us, milky way the only galaxy, bending light, black holes other planets, etc

The quote is completely irrelevant to your geometry. What does any of your geometry have to do with the fact that light can be polarized?

I think you missed something here. The clue is in the transverse waves, and as I did point out, it is from my point of view and from my geometry which I now believe you have not quite grasped. I can elaborate on the detail but the summary of it is-- all photons are radialy emmitted from their own event, therefore all transverse waves are made up of continuously radialy emitted photons from a continuously moving event--The moment each photon leaves, it is not frame dependent. The calculation of frame speed is absolutely photon angle dependent as I believe JDoolin and yourself may have alluded to previously This is rather like the confusion from my original post where I was indicating photons and others--- were talking about a beam or pulse of light which as a point of origin is frame dependent but at a photon level it is not frame dependent.

Immediately, because the Lorentz transform is not compatible with an experimentally detectable absolute rest.

I do like that statement. Perhaps I can do better than the ten minute attempt I made a while ago. Did you find the error in that.

No, the math has disproved you completely at every step of the way. Nothing you have claimed is logically sound as I have demonstrated mathematically multiple times.

Two things here. My geometry is to scale, ie in my case with a radius of 100mm which was adequate to predict a moving frames clock speed and therefore the predicted time dilation of a journey at any speed. It can all be predicted in 1cm or less.
This was my claim and it still stands.
The second point here is, a mechanicaly viable relativity would have displaced Lorentz right from the start especialy as he threw out both the elements of mechanical and electrical and the mechanical relativity would not have been allowed to be debunked by using Lorentz which is what you are doing now.
I do remember a little saying which pertains to anything which was considered "magic" being explained as "Its all done with mirrors"

 

[JDoolin]

Two things here. My geometry is to scale, ie in my case with a radius of 100mm which was adequate to predict a moving frames clock speed and therefore the predicted time dilation of a journey at any speed. It can all be predicted in 1cm or less.
This was my claim and it still stands.

Your diagram from post 75 looks spot on.

but...

The second point here is, a mechanicaly viable relativity would have displaced Lorentz right from the start especialy as he threw out both the elements of mechanical and electrical and the mechanical relativity would not have been allowed to be debunked by using Lorentz which is what you are doing now.
I do remember a little saying which pertains to anything which was considered "magic" being explained as "Its all done with mirrors"

...I can't figure out what you're trying to say, here. No electrical elements were thrown out. The only thing that changed, mechanically, was momentum and kinetic energy have to be corrected when the velocity is relativistic.

p = \gamma m v \approx mv

KE = (\gamma-1)m c^2 \approx \frac{1}{2}m v^2

 

[Dale]

For sure I believe that there is an experimental way to prove green man is at rest which has not been devised as yet just the same evolution of the facts re flat earth, sun rotating around us, milky way the only galaxy, bending light, black holes other planets, etc

This is completely contrary to all known physical laws. While you can indeed speculate that sometime in the future some new currently-unknown physical force may possibly be discovered, and you may further speculate that the now undiscovered physics could possibly provide for the detection of an absolute rest frame, there is currently no evidence to support that claim. Therefore discussion of such a possibility is entirely speculative and in violation of the forum rules. This site is for discussing mainstream science. Not for completely unsubstantiated speculation.

In addition, so far all of your examples have been in terms of light, not some hypothetical undiscovered 5th fundamental force. If you believe in the existence of some undiscovered laws of physics which would provide experimental evidence for an absolute rest frame then you should explicitly state that is what you are talking about instead of expressing things in terms of light. Then, at least, it would be clear that you are speculating about new physics rather than trying to understand existing physics.

Given that you are speculating about unknown physics, the rest of the conversation about light is moot.

 

[ZapperZ]

Closed pending moderation.

Zz.,