B What speed and direction are we actually traveling?

[Ibix]

The experiment is BASED on the assumed fact that LS is constant

It's based on your failure to understand the implications of light speed being constant. Please get hold of a textbook - Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics" is a good choice.

and also it would allow us to find out our near exact speed in the universe

Michelson and Morley's experiment was intended to do exactly this. Its null result is incomprehensible in the terms you are using; it's part of how relativity got started.

It's clear to me that you don't understand relativity. If you want to learn, Taylor and Wheeler is a good place to start and many people here will be willing to help you. If, instead, you prefer to dismiss over a century of detailed, carefully carried out, repeatable tests of relativity as "hearsay" and continue making up your own un-evidenced speculation based on misunderstanding of what relativity claims then that is your prerogative. It'll get you banned from here in short order, however.

 

[ZMacZ]

Ok then..here we go..

Now in one simple question, is this true, according to you...
(it'll help me with your responses as well..)

 

[Ibix]

Now in one simple question, is this true, according to you...

As noted, Michelson and Morley did this more thoroughly over a century ago, and avoided all the clock synchronisation problems you haven't noticed with your design.

The two setups will give identical results assuming the distances are measured using rulers at rest with respect to the source and receivers and the same clock synchronisation procedure is used. There is no universal rest frame, so the experiments are identical.

 

[ZMacZ]

@Ibix, does this means there will be no difference in ticks with my initial testing formation ?
(I know the answer already..)
(and the timing differences between the clocks are less than 0.000000001 % over a 24 hour period..)
(and that would be less than 0.3 mm..)

Also, I have already found a newer way to do it..

Scratch that, the 'newer' solution I came up with defeated itself again..

 

[stevendaryl]

Ok then..here we go..

I think that you really don't understand what relativity says about this thought experiment. I'm not exactly sure what your PE, PR1 and PR2 are supposed to be, but let's suppose that we have two planets that are at a constant distance of 2 light-years apart, according to their own reference frame. Call them A and B. Call their rest frame the AB frame. You have a rocket ship C that is traveling at 90% of the speed of light in the direction from A to B. Let's call its rest frame the C frame. When C gets half-way between A and B, it sends out two light signals: one to A and one to B. Then:

According to the AB frame:

1. The distance between A and B is 2 light years.
2. A is traveling at speed 0.
3. B is traveling at speed 0.
4. C is traveling at 90% of the speed of light.
5. The light arrives at A one year later.
6. It also arrives at B at the same time, one year later.

In this frame, the signals arrive simultaneously.

According to the C frame:

1. The distance between A and B is only 0.87 light years.
2. A is traveling at 90% the speed of light away from C.
3. B is traveling at 90% the speed of light toward C.
4. C is traveling at speed 0.
5. The light arrives at A 4.36 years later.
6. The light arrives at B 0.229 years later.

In this frame, the light arrives at B 4 years before it arrives at A.

 

[Ibix]

does this means there will be no difference in ticks with my initial testing formation ?

Assuming that you have three receivers equal distances from one source, all mutually at rest, and you've synchronised all three clocks using the same procedure then you will get the same results from all three arms under all circumstances. Have you looked up the Michelson and Morley experiment yet?

 

[ZMacZ]

@stevendaryl..yes..you got it..
But did you know it will also work at our non-relativistic speed, the same way ?..and that's how measuring time by the LS
will tell us about our actual speed in the universe..

@Ibix, nope...all the clocks are synchronized beforehand, and nope, the number of tciks since start will differ, except when we're not moving in the universe at all..
And yes, I looked those up too..but the thing with reflecting is this, whatever speed 'advantage you have on the way there, you'll get against on the way back..
But..when it's only one way and then measured, it'll be different, UNLESS we are all standing still and Earth doesn't move in the universe..

To me it's a mixed blessing...one one hand it will be expecting that LS is true constant, and thus
travelling faster by any means bound by LS will always yields a speed lower than LS..
On the other hand it will enable us to know exactly which way we are going and at what speed..
(So..!YAY! for measuring our speed, or !YAY! for FTL..but they are almost mutually exclusive..)

 

[stevendaryl]

@stevendaryl..yes..you got it..
But did you know it will also work at our non-relativistic speed, the same way ?..and that's how measuring time by the LS
will tell us about our actual speed in the universe.

No, that's not correct. You can figure out your speed relative to some other slower-than-light object, but there is no such thing as "actual speed" in relativity.

Look, what you're saying is contrary to relativity. It's your own theory. We don't discuss people's private theories in Physics Forums.

 

[Ibix]

number of tciks since start will differ, except when we're not moving in the universe at all..

No it won't - Michelson and Morley demonstrated that. You are contradicting experiment, which means you're off in fantasy land.

And yes, I looked those up too..but the thing with reflecting is this, whatever speed 'advantage you have on the way there, you'll get against on the way back..

True.

when it's only one way and then measured, it'll be different,

False. It's impossible to make a one-way measurement of the speed off light without assuming your answer. So the speed can be anything you like. It depends on how you synchronise your clocks - and if you use the same synchronisation procedure all three arms will give the same result.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

Thread will remain closed for now. Here is a helpful comment in the Mentor discussion about this poster and this thread:

Looking at his diagram, this is a basic relativity of simultaneity misunderstanding -(light signals from the common source in the center reach the detectors at the same time only in the frame in which the two detectors and the emitter are at rest) with a generous admixture of invalid clock synchronization assumptions.

I'd started a reply but am inclined to think that one of the earlier answers is better: read Taylor and Wheeler or equivalent, come back if you get stuck somewhere and we can help you over the hard spot.