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

[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.,

 

[George Jones]

This thread will remain closed.

Sticky at the top of the Special & General Relativity Forums:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17355

Physics Forums rules, to which everyone agrees when they register,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380,

in part, state

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted.