![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Hi Mitchel,mitchellmckain » January 22nd, 2018, 7:22 pm wrote:The concept of inertia (that which resists a change of motion) has been pretty much replaced in modern physics by the more precise definitions of mass, momentum, and force: mass being the constant property of the object, momentum be the conserved quantity, and force being what changes the motion. Thus the first of Newton's three laws captures the idea of motion in two mathematical relationships: 1) momentum = mass times velocity, and it is conserved, 2) Force = the change of momentum with respect to time.
The word "inertia" is still used in rotational motion in the phrase "moment of inertia" which is the rotational analogue to mass (calculated from the arrangement of mass in an object by summing up the mass times the perpendicular distance to the axis of rotation squared). Then the two mathematical relationships become 1) angular momentum = moment of inertia times angular velocity, and it is conserved, 2) Torque = the change in angular momentum with respect to time.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thanks for your showcase on mass Ralph, I need that king of refreshing from time to time. Now, about the one way speed of light, wiki is implacable: there is no way to measure it and nobody succeeded yet, so why insist? On the other hand, I could not design simulations with moving light clocks if the light exchanged between the mirrors would have to take the same time back and forth, and those simulations give the same numbers than relativity. Here is my version of the twins paradox. With the light clock moving at .866c to the right, we can easily observe with our own eyes that light takes a lot less time going left than going right.ralfcis » January 23rd, 2018, 7:38 am wrote:" It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light anyway, but specialists consider that it would always be c if we could."
As Don Lincoln said it's very easy to measure the one way speed of light. Sync 2 co-located atomic clocks and separate them a few yards very slowly to minimize the relativistic affects of imparting one with half-twin age difference. Then shine a laser from one to the other and measure how long that laser takes to get there. No incredible mystery appears like the 1 way speed of light is really infinite like some here keep insisting may be masked by the 2 way speed of light using only 1 clock.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Inchworm » 24 Jan 2018, 00:09 wrote:Now, about the one way speed of light, wiki is implacable: there is no way to measure it and nobody succeeded yet, so why insist?
Inch wrote:With the light clock moving at .866c to the right, we can easily observe with our own eyes that light takes a lot less time going left than going right.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
There is absolutely no other way to make a simulation of the twins paradox than to let the light get reflected between the two moving mirrors, and it gives exactly the same numbers than SR. How is it possible? Is it chance?BurtJordaan » January 24th, 2018, 12:23 am wrote:A deeply flawed "absolute framer" way of thinking. After the "slow clock transport" method, it does not matter in which direction you measure the one-way speed - it is always the same, perfectly isotropic.Inch wrote:With the light clock moving at .866c to the right, we can easily observe with our own eyes that light takes a lot less time going left than going right.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Inchworm » 24 Jan 2018, 19:17 wrote:There is absolutely no other way to make a simulation of the twins paradox than to let the light get reflected between the two moving mirrors, and it gives exactly the same numbers than SR. How is it possible? Is it chance?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
No need to simulate it if you can build it, but if it works, a simulation should give the same result.ralfcis » January 24th, 2018, 2:02 pm wrote:Then I should simulate the perpetual motion machine I designed in high school. Otherwise i'll never know if it could have worked or not.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The twins paradox mind experiment needs to compare two clock, one at rest and one moving, and my simulation shows two light clocks, one at rest and one moving.BurtJordaan » January 24th, 2018, 3:10 pm wrote:Inchworm » 24 Jan 2018, 19:17 wrote:There is absolutely no other way to make a simulation of the twins paradox than to let the light get reflected between the two moving mirrors, and it gives exactly the same numbers than SR. How is it possible? Is it chance?
There are no moving mirrors in the "twins paradox".
I never saw any SR simulation. Can you show me one on the net?I think you have meant the MM-experiment. There are also no moving mirrors in the MM-experiment, just mirrors stationary relative to each other and both could be moving relative to some arbitrary reference frame, which is irrelevant. To simulate it using SR is pretty trivial.
There is only one clock at rest all the time, and what I did is move the other one at .866c, move the photons at c, change their direction when they collides with the mirrors, reverse the direction of the moving clock when it displays 8 ticks, and stop the simulation when the rest clock displays 32 ticks. As you can see, at the end, the moving clock displays 16 ticks, which is what SR predicts. I did not use the time of the clock at rest to determine the one of the moving clock, and I did not decide the distance traveled by the moving clock either if it is what you mean. Each clock has an independent counter, and it is the counter of the moving one that determines the moment it will turn around.You seem to have a deep mistrust/misunderstanding of inertial frames of reference. This is sad, because they are absolutely necessary in order to do proper science. What you are doing is mixing up two inertial frames, using A's time with B's distances.
No, the speed cannot exceed c, because at that speed, the light cannot reach the particles anymore. Let the speed of the particles get to 1c in this simulation, and observe what is happening: the particles cannot exceed c because there is no more light to accelerate them.That's fine if one knows what you are doing, realizing that apparent speeds then can tend to infinity and can hence not be true speeds.
In the case of the one way speed of light, wiki can't be more precise: they repeat in the minutest detail that it hasn't never been measured, and they explain why as well. Can you show me a paper from the main stream that contradicts wiki's one?About Wiki's and experts - the two just don't mix in physics. To keep correcting the false perceptions created by some articles is a fruitless exercise, because those problems just reappear quite soon. There are some articles that are excellent, but unless one knows the stuff already, it is hard to tell the difference. Wiki mostly tells us about a subject, it is not intended to teach a subject.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Inchworm » 25 Jan 2018, 07:21 wrote:The twins paradox mind experiment needs to compare two clock, one at rest and one moving, and my simulation shows two light clocks, one at rest and one moving.
Burt wrote:To simulate it [the MM experiment] using SR is pretty trivial.
I never saw any SR simulation. Can you show me one on the net?
Inch wrote:In the case of the one way speed of light, wiki can't be more precise: they repeat in the minutest detail that it hasn't never been measured, and they explain why as well. Can you show me a paper from the main stream that contradicts wiki's one?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If a difference in spacetime paths was different than a difference in the ticks of a light clock, then either my simulation wouldn't work, or it would only work by chance. I'm so lucky that I thing I'm going to buy a lottery ticket! :0)BurtJordaan » January 25th, 2018, 9:45 am wrote:Inchworm » 25 Jan 2018, 07:21 wrote:The twins paradox mind experiment needs to compare two clock, one at rest and one moving, and my simulation shows two light clocks, one at rest and one moving.
Hmm..., nope. The twins paradox compares two clocks, one staying inertial and one making a non-inertial trip and comes back to the first one. It is only the difference in spacetime paths that creates the time difference.
My moving clock moves relatively to the one at rest too, it just happens that the screen is in the same reference frame as the one at rest. I could move the two clocks with regard to the screen if I wanted to, and keep the speed of light at c with regard to the screen. Whatever the reference frame I would chose, I think that the difference between the two clocks would stay the same, because their relative speed would stay the same. Do you see how easily simulations could help to solve SR problems?Burt wrote:To simulate it [the MM experiment] using SR is pretty trivial.
I never saw any SR simulation. Can you show me one on the net?
It is so trivial and self-explanatory that nobody has ever wasted time on simulating it. I can refer you to many beginner's text books that have the sketches and explanation for the SR version. The point is that there are no 'moving clocks' in SR, only clocks moving relative to each other. But I do not expect "absolute framers" to accept or even understand that statement.
The reason why it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light is very simple: we need clocks that count the light pulses to measure it, and the atoms that send those light pulses automatically adjust them to their relative speed the same way my moving clock does.Don't worry too much about the Wiki article itself, just look at titles of the papers referenced. There are arguments and counter-arguments and refutations among them. Still, no Lorentz violations have been found and confirmed so far. It is many a physicist's dream to find one, because it is bound to lead to some interesting new physics (and fame).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
ralfcis » January 25th, 2018, 10:10 am wrote:Yay Jorrie, you're on a roll. Now surely you can spank down my theory once and for all on the contentious issue of length contraction I've laid out in the last 2 posts.
Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat disks when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests