What do I see wrong here ? T2 = T1(1 - V/C)

[ghwellsjr]

I don't consider the case closed until you do what I asked in my last post:

I've never said that your equations are illegal, just that they don't represent anything meaningful.

I think you are capitalizing on the point that your scheme yields the correct answer for the reciprocal of gamma at a speed of zero (1/γ=1) and at a speed of c (1/γ=0) but I don't see the points in between as coming out correctly. For example, at a speed of 0.6c, 1/γ=0.8 and at a speed of 0.8c, 1/γ=0.6. Can you show that your scheme correctly yields these two intermediate cases?

Remember, you are trying to come up with a method to teach SR that is easier than conventional methods, so it should be very easy for you to do this if your method is legitimate.

Can you start by showing your formula and explain what the different variables in it mean?

Then plug in the speed of 0.6c and show that it returns a value of 0.8 (or its reciprocal if you have set it up that way).

Then plug in a speed of 0.8c and show that it returns a value of 0.6 (or its reciprocal).

I think you have already shown that if you plug in 0c you get 1 out and if you plug in 1c you get 0 out (or its reciprocal) but make sure these two values also work correctly.

But you can't cheat and use gamma in your formula.

Could you do that please and make it very simple because you said you want to use this to teach people about Special Relativity:

So I try to make Einstein visible to show to other people.

 

[digi99]

Gwh, ok I understand you want to see that my formula is confirmed by Lorenz. I think you have your own calculator ...

I got this same problem in another forum. Soon I show you my formula confirmed with Lorenz (I have to work now). Maybe everybody sees the problem than, maybe not (I think, but that's my topic) ...

In the meantime I offered my small theory already to others (physicists, maybe too early ) ..

 

[digi99]

This is now a summary of my small theory included time space diagrams and how I got the confirmation of my formula via Lorenz.

1.5 half year ago I was already thinking all is relative except the light speed, for my feelings not right, and so there must be something absolute.

Light must be expressing time (like a clock signal in a computerchip), and there must be a way to show time dilation to others in a simple way (no magic).

I had the idea that time dilation could be teached to somebody to say, see a light wave as time, if you are standing still, look to the passing light wave and you see time passing, than walk or run in the direction of the light wave and you see that light wave slower passing, so time goes slower for you (compare with a train, a light wave is just an object, no magic except it's speeds is always constant in vacuum). How to measure with a device ? Create a device that counts waves, how lesser waves you count, how slower time is passing. I am convinced even if you walk or run in the other direction of a light wave you count the same total waves. Einstein and others should say, all is relative, you will count always the same waves.

So I wanted to proof my thoughts and there is a big chance that I make some mistakes (than I was wrong).

See here my first diagram (time_e.jpg, see answer #14).

You see A in his rest frame, we see a light wave and we see B moving, when A meets B, we count the total length of the passing light wave for A. A thinks by calculation for B, what the total length of the passing light wave should be for B (ΔB = ΔA .(1 - (V/C) and sees already a time dilation. But we know that has no real meaning, because it is only important how B it sees. But if I get this formula via Lorenz too for B with a γ factor, I think A has a good view on the situation, besides the formula for B is proofed and meets his total length for his passing light wave. We know already that the length contraction is 1 / γ, so we must be sure too that the results are lower otherwise B sees the same waves but only smaller.

Here you see my second diagram (time_e1.jpg, see answer #18).

You see here A and B in their own rest frames (A meets B in x=0, easier).

Here you see how I got the formule from Lorenz (time_e4.jpg) and some results, you see the length is going lower and lower 1 / γ.

I think I have proofed now my point and now I go direction absolute points in space.

See here my next diagram (time_e3.jpg, see answer #24).

We need a light wave for both in the same direction, which direction is not important but the same direction. V1 and V2 are speeds to an absolute rest point (where our light wave has started). In the real world only V2-V1 or V1-V2 can be seen (relative speeds).

So ΔB = ΔA . (1 - (V2-V1)/C) or ΔA = ΔB . (1 - (V1-V2)/C).

More exactly W = (V2 -V1) / (1 - ((V1.V2)/C2).

So more exactly ΔB = ΔA . (1 - W/C) (calculated by A, or seen from B multiplied by γ) or ΔA = ΔB . (1 + W/C) (calculated by B, or seen from A multiplied by γ).

So both can see with the device counting waves, who has the highest speed (B because counts lesser waves and goes slower in time, so his speed is higher).

This values are all time dilations compared with the light wave speed (seen from A or B).

So an absolute restpoint is born.

I see space as absolute rest points where light waves are started (mass is zero, light waves can't be influenced by other speeds in vacuum) and all the remaining objects are moving. Maybe that rest points are laying in another dimension.

I have not read yet all about bending space, but I can imagine now that light is following that time fields (because light is time and speed always c).

 

[ghwellsjr]

You still have done what I asked for with 0.6c and 0.8c. Here's what you said in your first post:

So C . T1 = V . T1 + C . T2, so T2 = T1 . (1 - V/C). It fits with the expectation of the SRT, when V=C than T2 = 0, the time stands still. When V= 0, T2 = T1.

T1 is for the "stationary" observer and T2 is for the "moving" observer. I'd like to make these into a ratio so that it will be like the reciprocal of gamma:

T2/T1 = (1 - V/C)

As you pointed out, with V=C, the ratio is 0, just like the reciprocal of gamma.

And as you further pointed out, with V=0, the ratio is 1, just like the reciprocal of gamma.

But with V=0.6C, your ratio is 0.4, unlike the reciprocal of gamma which is 0.8.

And with V=0.8C, your ratio is 0.2, unlike the reciprocal of gamma which is 0.6.

So it's quite easy to show that your scheme does not yield the correct values except at its two endpoints so although it might be "easier" to comprehend, it teaches the wrong thing.

 

[digi99]

Gwh, please can you forget the first post, consider only my summary.

You are talking about "the times", I am talking since a while about Δ (growing distances and times unlike not in the title) and in my summary it is clear that there is no immediate answer between what A thinks that B sees, and what B sees (no 1/γ relation, but a γ relation). But the total length of the passing lightwave B sees is lower 1 / γ, the length contraction, that is the point now.

 

[digi99]

Gwh, ΔB = ΔA .(1 - (V/C) . 2γ . 1/γ.

That what A thinks is a little different what B sees after Lorenz, but the length is going shorter (shorter than factor 1/γ).

 

[digi99]

Gwh, sorry I mean Gwh, ΔB = ΔA . (1 - (V/C) . (γ)2 . 1/γ.

I know than ΔTb = ΔTa . (1 - (V/C) . (γ)2 . 1/γ.

And that is not the same as Δt' = Δt . 1/γ as general in Lorenz, so where I am going wrong ?

You teach maybe the SRT (I still don't), so you tell me

 

[digi99]

Yes the party is over, this subject may be closed.

I made a mistake in my formula, I was just using an X1 and an X2 but not the same as for ΔXa, if you fill in V.T1 and V.T2 than you get ΔXb = 1/γ . ΔXa.

But I have learn now more about light by all this, now I have a better view. I understand now the SRT, it is all relative.

E.g. comparing passing light waves (mass = 0) to a long train (mass > 0). Person A (standing still) sees the train passing but B (has speed) sees the train slower passing. But with light as well A as B (from the meeting point) see the same passing light waves and that problem is solved by time dilation.

That's why I got this problem, you may not see light as another object with a mass > 0.

Funny, light is really magical now for me ... but it represents still time .. the end ..

 

[digi99]

I am not finished with this subject, maybe it is a mathematically problem I don't see.

When I fill in in my equation x1=v.t1 and x2=v.t2, I get the very known formula ΔXb = 1/γ . ΔXa.

If I don't fill in you get my formula and the results are not the same (see time_e4.jpg in #33). E.g. 0.1c than ΔXb = 0.904 . ΔXa and 0.904 < 1/γ (= 0.995).

Which formula is ok ? (see attachment)

 

[digi99]

Solved, this topic is done now.

The first formula is right of course because you must see it for B standing still, where Lorenz is meant for.

In the second I made the mistake to take ΔX twice but they are not the same.

What I did in my equation is only possible for the line c (lightspeed) and not for other speeds (Lorenz is only meant for A standing still and B standing still).

But I learned a lot and my understanding is better now (don't see the lightspeed as an other object with mass > 0, if you have more speed (B) than (A), you see lesser wagons of a passing train (from the meeting point with A) but the same waves of light than A sees, solved by nature by time dilation).

 

[digi99]

Yes, with my topic I found a meaningfull formula, I did not seen sooner. Not different Einstein but it shows better with my pictures.

ΔXb_light = γ . ΔXa_light - γ . V/C . ΔXb_seen_from_a (it's equal ΔXb_light = 1 / γ . ΔXa_light)

or

ΔXb_light = γ . (ΔXa_light - V/C . ΔXb_seen_from_a).

Voila.

So shows there is a relation between the length of the light wave for A, the length of the light wave for B and the movement of B how A it could see. That was my point only the formula is something different. And of course all compared to A, and of course symmetric in SRT terms.

 

[digi99]

Conclusion :

Person A predicted a time dilation for person B without Lorenz and person A was right. Only the values were different of course (Lorenz), but the way person A was thinking is ok (subtract person B's own movement from the total measured light wave by person A, but his device for counting waves has no function here).

The final end (has at least a meaning) ..

 

[digi99]

To make it complete because of the title:

Person A calculated ΔTb_light = ΔTa_light . (1 - V/C).

After Lorenz : ΔTb_light = γ . ΔTa_light . (1 - V2/C2).

 

[digi99]

There are several things wrong with your thinking.

First off, a device that counts the cycles of light can be used as a clock, but only as long as the light source is stationary with respect to the counting device. This would work for observer 1 but since observer 2 is moving away from the light source, he will count fewer cycles than he should for it to be a legitimate clock so the count of the wave cycles won't be correlated with time. This is not the time dilation that Einstein described. It is instead Relativistic Doppler which would result in your "clock" running even slower than it should. But if observer 2 carried an identical light source and a second period counter, it will count at the correct rate predicted by Einstein's time dilation. Then observer 2 could compare the rates of the two devices and that will demonstrate the Relativistic Doppler Factor.

To explain my point of the Doppler effect in this topic. It's an discussion in another topic but completes this one.

If I use this formula ΔXb_light_seen_from_a = ΔXa_light . (1 - V/C) in this formula ΔXb_light = γ . (ΔXa_light - V/C . ΔXb_seen_from_a) I get :

ΔXb_light = SQRT(1 - v2/c2) / (1 - V/C) . ΔXb_light_seen_from_a

This looks indeed the Relativistic Doppler effect (if ΔX can be replaced by frequencies too).

But this was not meant in this topic, it's a coincidence that both formulas are the "same". But in this topic I was expressing time ΔTb_seen_from_a and came to my formula.

If I would talking about counting waves (but I don't), indeed you get the Doppler effect while holding an object (device) in a light wave. So maybe we have to find something in the future that it can be in another way, if it was necessary for me, but it is not.

I have already confirmed that you never will see my effect, a slower going light wave, because by nature distances are immediately corrected, so the light speed will be the same. Finally you will see only smaller light waves (if could be showed to you).

But still can't be proofed that I may not explain that on my website and to other interesting people (compare a light wave to time, the moving one sees the light wave slower passing, and symmetric of course). In the Lorenz formula ΔXb_light = γ . (ΔXa_light - V/C . ΔXb_seen_from_a) you still see that ΔXb_seen_from_a is subtracted (partially) from ΔXa_light, maybe it has no meaning.

 

[digi99]

To be sure that somebody who reads this topic ever thinks, ok relativistic Doppler, next topic, I want to say this is not the case here.

Consider only answer #11 with picture, answer #18 (ignore formula Lorenz, was wrong), and last answers from #39 (rest is nonsense because of mistakes).

Consider an extra dimension and add an y-axes. For (A) (y=0), and for (B) y=p (just a value).

Compare a light wave to (A) and (B) just in the middle, say y=.5p.

Mathematically the same results and B is not moving in a light wave, so no Doppler effect.

 

[digi99]

Eureka, proved !

I was doing difficult with Lorenz and suddenly I saw the simple solution.

Look to the Lorenz transformation : Xb_light = γ . ( x - V . Ta_light).

In all the points from frame A where x = V . Ta_light and time Ta_light for B is the coordinate in frame B zero.

In all other points starts the time in frame B, so in each other point the transformed light wave has missed piece V . Ta_light. That's in frame B pro rato 1/γ . V / C for distance (length wave) and time.

With other words the time dilation calculated by A pro rato in frame A V/C is exactly the time dilation in frame B 1/γ . V / C

So you may see a light wave as the relative time signal (it expresses relative time between two events), if you are standing still you see the time passing at a maximum, if you move (compared to another object/person) you see a little piece lesser passing, and that's exact the time dilation (in reality you see a smaller light wave but you are not aware of).