One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Re: Path to Enlightenment

Postby Faradave on February 15th, 2017, 12:48 pm 

Dave_O,

I haven't put the time in to this that you have. For what it's worth...

Dave_Oblad wrote:Start with the simple fact that a flash/beam/pulse of Light doesn't travel any faster from a moving source of light than from a stationary source of light.

Off to a great start!

Dave_Oblad wrote:Thus given a Flashing Lamp between two mirrors of equal distance from the lamp and the whole line is moving in-line with the setup, then we must agree that the Flash path is longer chasing the front mirror and shorter towards the rear mirror coming to meet the flash. The path lengths are different and thus the travel time is different.

This is well put and quite helpful in isolating our differences. It's actually correct IF the oscilloscope (and some part of the cables) are in a different inertial frame from the flasher & mirror apparatus. The scope would then see the apparatus moving as you describe.

However, Lincoln has the cables and scope in the same inertial frame as the mirrors & flasher (indeed it would be difficult to do otherwise). That means your initial condition "the whole line is moving" doesn't apply. To the scope and cables, the remaining apparatus is seen to be at rest. The incident and reflected paths will thus be equal.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Dave_Oblad on February 15th, 2017, 6:42 pm 

Hi Faradave,

Faradave wrote:The incident and reflected paths will thus be equal.

You just violated the first quote you provided and agreed with. Can you see this?

One-Way and Two-Way are only ever equal if the test is absolutely stationary. Just being inertial simply doesn't cut it.

First, the Einstein Cheat is Bogus and flawed and I said that years ago. It will always measure light transit as equal in both directions. My exact words were: It's like proving all dogs run at the same speed. Prove it by a race between any two dogs.. but give the slower dog an exact head start.

Anyway, the issue is with the cables. They are not magical and only insert a quantity of delay in transit times. Less transit delay if one uses Fiber Optic Cable and the least transit delay if using Light through the Vacuum. Thus the Experiment is no different than putting a flash strobe at the sensors and triggering them when a test Photon passing by trips the first sensor (setting off a focused flash to center) and then that same test Photon passes the other Sensor also triggering a focused Flash back to center.

Now we see that the Test Photon is in a race to the center simultaneous with the tripped flash and both pass center Simultaneously. So it's no different than just putting the first sensor at the center and marking the start timing. The test Photon now passes the 2nd sensor and sends back a focused flash.. or it could just be a Mirror and bounce that test Photon back to center and save on the cost of making any flashers. When the reflected test Photon gets back to center mark the time from start to finish.

WTF? We just measured the Two-Way Speed of Light as Center-End-Center. The cables only inserted a Medium with Delay in both directions. Unless one wishes to assert the Signal Transit Time through a Cable is instantaneous? But no one here is that stupid. At best it could only conduct a pulse at the speed of light and at worst insert a transit delay, which (btw) cables would still have the same issues as a vacuum in One-Way vs Two-Way transit delays.

So Lincoln is wrong and Jorrie was wrong to eventually agree with Lincoln.

One can confuse the issues with Frames and Math.. but the setup is obvious and it does measure the Two-Way Speed of Light only.. as I just explained above.

If Lincoln wasn't pulling our leg in claiming he had done the experiment and had shown that the One-Way being Equal to the Two-Way, then of course, the test is Faulty. As it really measures the Two-Way only. So Lincolns results are exactly what I would have predicted by simply reviewing the setup.

I did offer a final real method, but it requires the calibrations to be done absolutely stationary (say Relative to the CMB). After the calibrations are made.. and then the whole thing is set rigid.. then you can move it about and everything stays in the same frame. Without starting as completely stationary, calibrations are near impossible, derived from my two quotes you echoed/provided above.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby BurtJordaan on February 16th, 2017, 2:58 am 

Dave_Oblad » 16 Feb 2017, 00:42 wrote:So Lincoln is wrong and Jorrie was wrong to eventually agree with Lincoln.


Says a rank amateur about Lincoln, a professional with the following (partial) track record:

"He received a Ph.D. in experimental particle physics from Rice University in 1994. In 1995, he was a codiscoverer of the top quark. He has coauthored hundreds of research papers and, more recently, was a member of the team finding evidence for the Higgs boson."

Enough said. :)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Dave_Oblad on February 16th, 2017, 3:49 am 

Hi Jorrie,

I've seen a famous Physicist demonstrate the invalidity of the Block Model by flapping his arms around. I think it was Lee Smolin. Obviously doesn't understand the Block Model is basically a Map of Time.

I've seen another (Michio Kaku) tell an audience that two wheels sharing the same axle and spinning in opposite directions is a stable Gyroscope.

I respect all of them, but that doesn't mean they are always right about everything. In some cases they may be eventually proven to be very wrong.

It's been a long standing axiom/law that one can't clone Quantum States.. until someone did it with 5/6 fidelity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cloning

Anyway..

You may call me an Amateur but I'm not Rank.. I shower everyday ;)

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 16th, 2017, 7:53 am 

It's long been known that Superman can go FTL. It's also been proven that yesterday's comic book is tomorrow's science. As a corollary to that, tomorrow's science always proves present science wrong. So going by tomorrow's science, and just plain logic, Dave is 100% correct.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 16th, 2017, 9:02 am 

The pros aren't always right. On this, Dave is correct.

But in this instance the pro is. And it's not hard to show. Since I did that already, I won't repeat it.

BurtJordan, sounds like that bio needs updating. Currently it is over a thousand and co-discovered the Higgs boson. Plus it doesn't mention that I am devastatingly handsome.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate

Postby ronjanec on February 16th, 2017, 11:23 am 

"Plus it doesn't mention that I am devastatingly handsome"? Is this the same Dr. Don Lincoln that I have seen pictures of? I am willing to concede the handsome part, but devastatingly handsome?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 16th, 2017, 1:06 pm 

Yep. Women want me and men want to be me.

I heard it on the internet, so it must be true.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ronjanec on February 16th, 2017, 1:31 pm 

"I heard it on the internet, so it must be true"? Yeah, how can anyone argue with that?

"Yep". "Women want me and men want to be me"? You need to also include "he is also a very humble person" in your new bio Don.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ronjanec on February 16th, 2017, 1:39 pm 

Seriously speaking: I was not aware that you were officially credited with being a co-discoverer of the Higgs boson Don. Great job!
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 16th, 2017, 3:10 pm 

I have the greatest amount of humble. Everyone is saying so. (Thought I'd throw in a timely and familiar sounding boast.)

Yeah...I discovered the Higgs boson. Of course, it was me and 6,000 of my closest personal friends. But don't tell my mom. She thinks I did it myself.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...
dandelion liked this post


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ronjanec on February 16th, 2017, 3:26 pm 

6001 Nobel Prizes times a million dollars each, equals a little over 6 billion dollars the Nobel Prize Fund will have to pay out at one time? Don't take any checks Don.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 16th, 2017, 3:30 pm 

Ballpark $1.5M, split about 6k ways.

Of course, the Higgs Nobel was already awarded.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ronjanec on February 16th, 2017, 3:46 pm 

$249.96 each per recipient? That's probably just enough money for you to buy both of us a real nice steak and lobster dinner at Gibson's Restaurant in Oak Brook "for all the help that I have given you here over the years with your work"(I don't drink, so you will save a lot of money right there, and you will probably have to leave Mrs. Lincoln at home unfortunately)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 16th, 2017, 7:55 pm 

Dr. Lincoln,

Please, I beg you, I just have 1 quick question:

c2=v2+w2

W is the velocity through time expressed as w=c/Y. (Y is gamma) The faster your relative velocity through space, the slower your counterpart's velocity through time.

Does this not mean that all velocity is c for everyone? Does that not mean our relative velocity is actually an absolute velocity of c and the only role the relative velocity through space plays is that it reduces the velocity through time so the absolute velocity between everything is maintained at a constant c?

I just came upon this yesterday and it's a turning point for me in understanding relativity.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 16th, 2017, 9:47 pm 

ronjanec » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:46 pm wrote:$249.96 each per recipient? That's probably just enough money for you to buy both of us a real nice steak and lobster dinner at Gibson's Restaurant in Oak Brook "for all the help that I have given you here over the years with your work"(I don't drink, so you will save a lot of money right there, and you will probably have to leave Mrs. Lincoln at home unfortunately)

Mrs. L .is way more of a babe than you, so I'm afraid that you are SOL.

And $250 won't buy all >>that<< great of a dinner. Nice, to be sure, but it ain't Mortons.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 16th, 2017, 9:51 pm 

Ralfcis,

This is somewhat outside the point of this thread (or course, so is the customary ronjanec/Lincoln banter), but this is something we know about.

A few years after Einstein came up with his seminal 1905 paper, his mentor, Hermann Minkowski, was able to reformulate Einstein's equations in a geometrical way. He was able to show that the Lorentz transforms were just rotations in space time using the Minkowski metric. Now I realize that that last sentence is a bit of gobbledygook, but the upshot is that you can show that all objects move through spacetime at a single speed, which is c. Thus an object travelling through space at the speed of light has no residual motion through time. And an object that is stationary in space is moving through time at c. (Well, technically, it is moving through c x time at c.)

There is no absolute motion. I know you want it to be true, but it just isn't. There is entirely too much evidence for anyone to reasonably dispute it.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...
TheVat liked this post


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 16th, 2017, 11:04 pm 

Thank you so much for answering.
the upshot is that you can show that all objects move through spacetime at a single speed, which is c

But if everything is moving at a single fixed speed c, how is that not an absolute motion? It can't be a relative motion because any velocity (especially c) relative to c is still c. Nothing can move faster or slower than c which is a pythagorean combination of 2 velocity components, one through space, the other through time. If anything moves relatively through space, it's relative motion through time will go slower so that the combined velocity will always be c = sqrt(v2+(c/Y)2). Am I missing the right words? Is their some difference in our definitions of absolute motion?
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby BurtJordaan on February 17th, 2017, 1:54 am 

With apologies to Lincoln, and just before someone runs away with the misconception that he advocated some form of "absolute space".

Lincoln » 17 Feb 2017, 03:51 wrote:Thus an object travelling through space at the speed of light has no residual motion through time. And an object that is stationary in space is moving through time at c. (Well, technically, it is moving through c x time at c.) There is no absolute motion.

"No absolute motion" means that there is no absolute time and no absolute space. "Stationary in space" must be understood as stationary in the spacetime of some arbitrary inertial frame, i.e. it is still a relative concept.

I have seen so many misinterpreting these principles, or taking them out of context and basing a false interpretation on them.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)
Faradave liked this post


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 17th, 2017, 5:25 am 

"Stationary in space" must be understood as stationary in the spacetime of some arbitrary inertial frame, i.e. it is still a relative concept.

Yup both could be moving at some velocity through space relative to some arbitrary background of space but relative to each other they are moving at 0 velocity through space. But both are also moving relative to each other at the velocity of c through time. If one or the other starts moving through space relative to the other, the relative velocity through time reduces by the formula w=sqrt(c2-v2)=c/Y. As relative v through space increases, and comes close to c, the relative velocity through time goes to zero as Lincoln said. But throughout the journey, the true relative combined velocity is always c no matter what just the relative velocity through space is. I am not confusing my definition of an absolute velocity (that's always c between all frames) and an absolute velocity relative to an absolute space. I know this is the common misconception but I'm not saying it or advocating it.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 17th, 2017, 9:29 am 

What I meant is that all observers agree on the length of the duration vector in spacetime. Using c as the speed of light, x as the location of the event by any arbitrary observer, t as the time of the event experienced by any arbitrary observer, and tau as the proper time, then:



is also called Lorentz time or rest time.

The key point is that all observers...no matter what value they give to x or t...will agree that the two combine in this way to the Lorentz invariant (e.g. observer independent) value of .

One can then define a velocity through space time, which is simply the derivative of the Lorentz invariant with respect to the proper time. This is simply c.

Now I have to think a little bit about absolute spacetime. It is clear that there is no absolute space and no absolute time....they are simply vectors within spacetime and people can disagree on the vectors.

Note that since I see the phrase Pythagorean theorem mentioned to say that that in spacetime, the relevant "Pythagorean theorem" is the hyperbolic version of it. This was all worked out by Minkowski in 1908 or something.

It may be that spacetime is absolute...I actually have to think a bit about that. If all observers agree on durations in spacetime, that might be the definition.

But, even if spacetime is absolute (and I am unwilling to make that statement at this time), it is important to know that this is not the only crucial thing. The other crucial thing is that there is a single constant speed in spacetime, so it's not like that objects can have different speeds in spacetime. In space or in time, yes. But not in spacetime. And without BOTH the constancy of speed and the universality of the vector I defined, you can easily be misled. It is sooooooo easy to be misled in relativity.

And time did not permit me to participate in SCF when I left some years ago. That has not changed. Thus I will not be participating in the manner that I did five years ago or so. I'll let the currently active members of the forum do the heavy lifting.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 17th, 2017, 9:42 am 

The other crucial thing is that there is a single constant speed in spacetime, so it's not like that objects can have different speeds in spacetime. In space or in time, yes. But not in spacetime. And without BOTH the constancy of speed and the universality of the vector I defined, you can easily be misled.

But so far as I can see we're both saying the exact same thing. Thanks for helping but for me it's groundhog day every day on this forum where everyday people treat me like it's my very first post. I was hoping you could extricate me.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 17th, 2017, 9:49 am 

I am unwilling to agree with your recent post, as I haven't dug into your writings enough to know if I agree or not. It is quite possible that you are simply hearing what you want to hear.

My post was strictly on what classical relativity says. You and your writings played zero role in my post. If your writings disagree in any way with classical relativity, you are almost certainly wrong.

I guess this isn't quite correct. The passage of my post on hyperbolic Minkowski space was written in part because I saw the Pythagorean phrase in your writings. I didn't want anyone to think that the classical and Euclidean Pythagorean theorem was relevant here. But, since I haven't read your writings, I make no comment explicitly them, beyond saying that if they differ from classical relativity, they are likely wrong.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 17th, 2017, 10:05 am 

They did differ until 2 days ago and then I saw the light. I just want affirmation that I did see the light (because it's so easy to be misled) and I saw it by extensively analyzing STD's in my ralfativity vs relativity personal theories thread. Yes everything's hyperbolic but that is just embedded in the math in a sum of squares sqrt function which I call pythagorean.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 17th, 2017, 10:08 am 

User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 17th, 2017, 10:27 am 

Yes each participant moves through time in proper time. They age at the same proper time rate (which is velocity through time w=c) when in constant relative motion. Relative aging occurs during the time period when 1 participant initiates a change of velocity and the other participant gets the info that a change has occurred. During this time period, the two participants have a disconnected relative motion and it is compensated for by relative aging. This time period allows the two participants to re-sync at the new relative velocity through space (even though their combined velocity always remained at c).

It's like if the sun disappeared, we would have 8 minutes delay before our reality recognizes we're not in the sun's gravity well. The information is the reality and when it's delayed by the speed of light, reality itself is delayed.

I've worked out all the math using doppler shift ratio instead of reciprocal time dilation. This math can make real time on the fly predictions of relative aging as it unfolds whereas the reciprocal time dilation method has to wait until the end of the spacetime interval.

Save me!
Last edited by ralfcis on February 17th, 2017, 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 17th, 2017, 10:35 am 

I'm pretty sure that I disagree with this. But I haven't thought deeply about your words. I prefer the math approach because there the conclusions aren't muddied by words.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 17th, 2017, 10:41 am 

Well all the math is spelled out in tedious detail but only in the last 5 posts is it correct (after I say I've figured it out). I did a lot of exploratory math before that.

PS. I'm so glad you said you're pretty sure you disagree with this because that shows a spark of interest in something that may prove more interesting than you anticipated. I mean it's only simple algebra, how hard could it be to tear it apart in no time.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby Lincoln on February 17th, 2017, 12:59 pm 

It's one thing to post anonymously on a board and something else for a person with a reputation in the field to say something. This is especially true if I can't assume you know what you're talking about.

I dropped out of SCF because the return on the time investment was low. There are probably engaged people who can spend the time to work through it with you.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: One-way Speed of Light a proven postulate?

Postby ralfcis on February 17th, 2017, 1:09 pm 

You're right. Way too many physics nuts out there to make it worth anyone's while to look at every one. Don't worry, I have the utmost confidence the truth will find another way to bubble up to the surface eventually.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


PreviousNext

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests