DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowboat

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Braininvat on September 7th, 2015, 11:22 pm 

You can shoot a flash light down your fore-aft corridor and you personally will still measure that beam to be traveling at just the Speed of Light.. because your frame of Time will be so Dilated. But to an outside observer (Ie:Universe..lol) your beam never actually exceeded the Speed of Light. Basic SR..



Dave, this is quite true, but not the point i was making at all. I think there must be something in my prose style that leads you to believe I am saying something I am not. No hard feelings. But this seeming inability to transmit a nuance or two.....means I should bow out.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby neuro on September 8th, 2015, 4:57 am 

Guys, I apologize for my previous post.
I hadn't realized there was a second page, so I came about trying to explain Dave something he had already got from Marshal BIV and Canadys.

I'll do what's possible to avoid this in the future, although Dr. Alzheimer seems to make things more difficult...
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 8th, 2015, 5:27 am 

Tell me about it Neuro...lol.

10 years ago I could count all my mistakes made in a month.. on just one hand. Today, I don't have enough fingers and toes to count all my mistakes made in a single day.. I hates it.. Makes being a programmer a real challenge.

Going to bed now..

Best to ya,
Dave:^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby CanadysPeak on September 8th, 2015, 8:04 am 

Dave_Oblad » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:25 pm wrote:Hi Biv,

Biv wrote:Aha! Just had an image thay may be useful. I, Paul Brainvat, am in a ship going 99.9999 C, away from Sol. It is very long, and I am a very fast runner. I run down the central fore-aft corridor at 0.0001 C! Yikes, did I just break the light barrier and violate the universal speed limit? NO. Because...my velocity is local, in my local FoR!

You can shoot a flash light down your fore-aft corridor and you personally will still measure that beam to be traveling at just the Speed of Light.. because your frame of Time will be so Dilated. But to an outside observer (Ie:Universe..lol) your beam never actually exceeded the Speed of Light. Basic SR.. sorry Biv.

Marshall is right, most my thinking is intuitive. When I see a remote object, like Saturn, I'm taught that Saturn is not really where I see it because of the lag time it takes for light reflected off it to reach me. The speed of its motion determines how much error there is from my perception of its location and its true location. Is that not basic Science? So I can't reconcile this basic Science with the SR frames that tell me that an object several light seconds away will still appear perfectly orthogonal to my position unless we are both standing still.

Bingo! I heard someone say! That's exactly the point of sharing the same Frame. For all intents and purposes both ships are standing still with respect to each other. (If I had a dime for every time I heard that...lol)

Anyway.. I have it confirmed by outside sources that we are (A) exactly 300,000 Kilometers apart and we are (B) both traveling at 0.5C based on milestone markers along our parallel paths perfectly orthogonal to each other. So I do some Pythagorean math and realize that the hypotenuse (diagonal) is greater than 300,000 Kilometers between us and therefore my beam pulse can't possibly reach the other ship in under 1 second or I violate the Speed of Light limit of 300,000 Kilometers per second through Space-Time between us.. So standing still and co-moving frames can't possibly be equivalent.

This forms a rather nasty Paradox (not unlike the Twin Paradox). I can't seem to break this Paradox without giving up on SR. So where exactly am I going wrong?

Time Dilation and Length Contraction only affect our ships and not the Space-Time between us, so those don't help me resolve this problem either. Neuro seemed to offer hope at breaking the above Paradox, so I pray he returns.

CP, sorry you lost me in your analogy.
Marshal, if I presented my Paradox well enough, do you have any insights to offer?

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)


You're using one lead of your VOM again. have it from outside sources that earth is ground, so I don't need to use my black lead. You have to measure everything yourself. I'm not saying it mathematically. Do all measurements in your own FOR and all will be well.
CanadysPeak
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 31 Dec 2008


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Braininvat on September 8th, 2015, 11:14 am 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_ ... ip_paradox

Bell's paradox, where acceleration and relativity of simultaneity comes into play, is a case where the FOR does matter in terms of relativistic stress along the line between the ships. And note that these two ships are in a line, one behind the other, and not abreast. The rest moments of each ship, though both accelerate at the same times in their flight, don't quite match up and so the string between the ships can be broken.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 8th, 2015, 9:36 pm 

Hi Everyone,

My original question regarded whether or not I could measure my speed inside a ship without an outside reference.. just by watching light bounce and the angle produced. I was told I couldn't inside my moving frame. So it's obvious that something must be altering something for my angle to disappear. So the question evolved into shooting a target outside my ship while I and my target are traveling at 0.5C. In my opinion, seeing my sister ship outside is looking at history and thus the Target on the side of my sister ship would be behind me.. definitely the wrong direction I should fire my Laser at. Makes no sense to shoot where sister has been..lol. So I did some internet digging and ran across this Wiki article about Aberration of Light.

The right side Wiki graphic explains why I would believe my Sister ship lags behind me.

Aberration.gif

Here is the Wiki Graphic from that article that made me believe I would see my sister ship leading me. Note where the star actually is and where I will see it to be. How far ahead depends on my (Earth) velocity.

stellar.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

It seemed to say that the angle of light will cause an illusion that my Sister ship is in front of me. Now that made sense, because intuition says I would have to lead my sister ship's target to hit it.. meaning timing my beam to intersect the sister ship by shooting in front of it. So I just aim at the Target, as it appears in front of me, and I hit it. I conceded defeat, because now it all made mechanical sense.

But the actual problem is both I and my sister ship are moving in the same Direction at the same Speed, perfectly orthogonal to each other. That speed being 0.5C on parallel paths. So, do the two effects above cancel each other and I see my sister ship at a perfect right angle from me? Seems reasonable enough.

But I'm told and accept that My Ship and My Sister Ship share the same Frame in SR. Ok so far and if we are stationary, I know my laser will hit the target on my Sister Ship at any distance. To be clear, we are taking SR in flat space away from all Gravitational effects. This is what my next Graphic indicates:

Ships.jpg
Note: My ships are not drawn to scale..lol.

But I put the two ships a full Light Second apart, for a real test of a Shared Frame in SR.

So here is where we are at now:

If both ships are perfectly orthogonal to each other and both at 0.5C velocity along my invisible Tracks(A,B), and just to make things more interesting, I put my Laser shooting in the direction we are traveling at. It bounces off a perfect right angle mirror and heads to my Sister Ship. Now, according to SR, I should be shooting my little Photon Bullets at a perfect right angle relative to my direction of travel and hit my Sister Ship dead on Target at any Speed, but for now.. 0.5C is fine and not too Relativistic for speed.

The Speed of Light is finite and will take 1 second to leave my mirror, headed towards my Sister Ship and intercept the Target there. Or will my Sister ship be 1/2 Light Second ahead of my Photon Bullets and I miss by 150,000 Kilometers?

To hit my Sister ship would require one of two things logically.
1. The Travel time of my Photon Bullets is instantaneous.
2. The Mirror will bounce my Photon Bullets to lead my Target.

Ok, (1) above is obviously wrong, Light Speed is Finite at 300,000 Kilometers Per Second.
So that leaves (2) and my Mirror is no longer bouncing at 90 degrees but has become Obtuse, causing my Photon Bullets to lead my Sister Ships Target and intercept said target dead on. However, one more twist is that if (2) is correct, then the travel path is longer, so will I still hit my Target?

Or...

There is a third option I haven't thought of yet and why I am Posing this Question.

Best Regards all,
Dave :^)

Note: The third option may involve 4-vector space, but that went over my head at this time.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Braininvat on September 8th, 2015, 9:54 pm 

Travel distance irrelevant. You and sister ship are stationary wrt each other. Just like shooting a laser from a very tall mast in Pasadena and hitting a very tall mast in Boston, while the Earth is moving away from Quasar 476g at 0.5 c.

BTW, I appreciate your good humored persistence. We are all upping our game on relativity, thanks to your ship puzzle. Hope you get a moment to tinker with Bell's paradox, too. It's a nice little migraine maker. :-)
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Marshall on September 8th, 2015, 10:24 pm 

A 45 degree mirror does not reflect light at 90 degrees if it is moving in the ref frame you are using.
But if the mirror is standing still in the ref frame being employed, then it reflects at 90 degrees the way you expect.

1) so in the frame where the two ships are standing still the mirror is standing still (as part of the ship) and the light is reflected exactly 90, and hits the target smack on

now let us change perpective to a bystander on the sidelines watching the ships go by. this is a new ref frame

2) in that case according to your picture he sees the mirror backing off from the light as it approaches, so the reflection is obtuse, more than 90 degrees, just enough that the light hits the target smack on (as it does in the first frame)

PS: the bystander sees the light take a longer path, therefore (since c is same in aLL FRAMES) it takes a longer time by hs clock. he judges that the shipboard clocks are slow by comparison to his.

PS: to understand reflection angle from mirror draw the parallel wavefronts approaching mirror
User avatar
Marshall
Honored Member
 
Posts: 7916
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Dave_Oblad liked this post


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 8th, 2015, 10:50 pm 

Hi Marshall..

Thank God!!!!!

Marshall wrote: in that case according to your picture he sees the mirror backing off from the light as it approaches, so the reflection is obtuse, more than 90 degrees, just enough that the light hits the target smack on (as it does in the first frame)

Thank you.. thank you.. thank you.. I was pulling my hair out (and I ain't got that much to spare now days).

Bestest Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Marshall on September 8th, 2015, 11:29 pm 

You are heartily welcome, Dave. I agree with BiV that your questioning got several us to "up our game" on relativity (as he put it). So it was possibly constructive and several of us may have learned something.
User avatar
Marshall
Honored Member
 
Posts: 7916
Joined: 17 Oct 2006


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby neuro on September 9th, 2015, 4:58 am 

Dave, in a sense this is what I tried to depict in that picture:
As the light "proceeds" in the laser tube, it moves orthogonal to your ship in the ship frame. However, an external "standing" observer would see the light proceed while the laser itself moves forward, so that it is as if the laser tube were inclined in the direction of travel.

You see the light going and coming back orthogonally. The external observer sees the light going diagonally and bouncing back to your ship quite a distance ahead.
The same happens with the mirror. Actually, if you draw the wavefronts you realize how this occurs in both cases
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby bangstrom on September 9th, 2015, 6:54 am 

A possibility that may be missing from this discussion is the Terrell–Penrose effect. This is an effect that causes objects to appear to rotate at relativistic speeds. The spaceship on the left should see the spaceship on the right rotated slightly to the right and the spaceship on the right should see the other ship rotated slightly to the left so the two ships are abreast of each other but no longer parallel. Because of rotation each ship is "behind" the other. And in the initial set-up with the laser and mirror, the mirror rotates forward as the speed increases so it always returns the light back to the laser.

A light signal sent from one ship to the other will not travel in a straight line. It will be curved like the corridor connecting the two ships but observers on the ships can not see the curvature of the light beam. They will see the other end of the corridor as “straight ahead” because that is the direction from which the light appears to be coming.

They will also see the other ship as located in the same direction from which the light is coming which is a point ahead of the other ship's location. If they send a light beam back to where they see the other ship it should strike the other ship directly because the light beam curves to the rear. This same curvature of the light beam makes the corridor look straight to those inside the ship and the openings on opposite ends of the curved corridor will no longer be parallel as described by the Terrell–Penrose effect.

Sending a light beam between the two ships would be similar to two people playing catch in a strong crosswind. Each player would have to throw the ball back in the same direction from which it came in order to throw it back to the other player. If you consider that light curves as it travels between the two ships and that the two ships are “directly abeam” but no longer parallel, that should clear up the paradox.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 348
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby CanadysPeak on September 9th, 2015, 9:14 am 

Bugger all If all the objects in your universe are "moving at the same velocity," you are, so far as you know, not moving. There are no relativity effects at all, no blue shift, no time dilation, no nothing. You see only classic Newtonian physics. You will not even need Lorentz transforms. The velocity of light is c. It's all cool. Unless something moves relative to you . . .
CanadysPeak
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 31 Dec 2008


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 9th, 2015, 8:10 pm 

Hi all,

Neuro.. that's why I was hoping you would come back.. I saw truth in your post. One can't ignore ballistics when a speed limit is involved.

bangstrom.. not sure I would call light curved but tilted works for me. Photons always travel in a straight line without externals messing with them. But the corridor concept raises an interesting possibility.. It will look straight given what we have discussed here, but that only works if the Speed of Light is normal. Would an atmosphere slow down the light and register as not being right angles anymore? Save that question for another thread.

CP, if everything was moving in the same direction at say, 0.5C, there would be measurable issues. A light cone would be tilted for starters (I think). The absolute Speed of Light defines a Relativistic Aether that sits center stage in GR. Space-Time is not a void.. it has structure and thus consequences. A full understanding of the Twin Paradox makes this clear. Your last sentence is hard to interpret. It sounds like everything is fine until something moves?

Are you pulling a "Biv" on me? I have a hard time figuring out when someone is pulling my leg or not.

Anyway, I'm just a student that refuses to "Shut Up and Calculate". I want to understand deeper truths...lol.

Best wishes to all and thanks for allowing this to play through to a conclusion. I sure learned a lot.
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Braininvat on September 9th, 2015, 8:43 pm 

I do come up with silly scenarios sometimes, like the sprinter running down the ship corridor. It helps me but may be "zen" and cryptic to others. I will try to be more straightforward (bit of bad pun there). LOL "pulling a BiV."

It being the centennial of GR, I hope we can do more relativity mind-benders. I really appreciate the quest for deeper truth, beyond SUAC.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 9th, 2015, 8:52 pm 

Hi Biv,

Very punny..

Did you know:
Mahatma Gandhi walked barefoot most of the time, producing impresive calluses on his feet. He also had an odd diet that made him frail and gave him bad breath. This made him a: Super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

Sorry.. couldn't resist..

Best to ya,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby CanadysPeak on September 9th, 2015, 9:08 pm 

Dave,
I am not pulling your leg. I am unable to communicate what I mean in a way that you get it, and the fault is mine. What I meant was that we have absolutely no way of knowing anything at all about constant velocities unless we reference them to other frames. Thus, I can never say that I m moving at a constant 0.5 c; it's like saying that a battery has only one terminal, but that terminal is 12.76 V - nonsensical. But, if you think I am joking with you about that, I am only interfering, and so should bow out of this discussion.
CanadysPeak
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 31 Dec 2008


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 9th, 2015, 9:23 pm 

Hi CP,

Ok, I get your point.. which raises an interesting question.. is it possible to prove one is in motion or perfectly still? SR/GR says no. But there are possibilities. I tried that on Jorrie a few years back and it got real complicated fast. Perhaps fodder for another thread?

Biv,
SUAC?

Springfield Urban Agriculture Coalition?
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Coalition?
Senior University Administrators Course?
Shizuoka University of Art and Culture?
Stratford Upon Avon College?
Space Universities Administrative Committee?
Southern United Agencies Company?
Sydney University Archery Club?
Stoners Uprising Aganst Communism?

I give.. what the heck is SUAC.. Google doesn't help.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby bangstrom on September 10th, 2015, 12:44 am 

Dave_Oblad » September 9th, 2015, 7:10 pm wrote:bangstrom.. not sure I would call light curved but tilted works for me. Photons always travel in a straight line without externals messing with them.

Light travels in a straight line but the rapid motion of the observer make it look like it is curving backward.
Dave_Oblad » September 9th, 2015, 7:10 pm wrote:
Anyway, I'm just a student that refuses to "Shut Up and Calculate". I want to understand deeper truths...lol.
I think the understanding must come before the calculation otherwise the calculation makes no sense. String theory for example.

SUAC: Shut Up And Calculate.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 348
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Braininvat on September 10th, 2015, 10:41 am 

Or STFUAC, the stronger version.

Southern Texas Forensic University Archery Club, of course.

Regarding a thread on absolute motion, perhaps a "modern aether theories" topic? Am game.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby CanadysPeak on September 10th, 2015, 9:41 pm 

Dave_Oblad » Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:23 pm wrote:Hi CP,

Ok, I get your point.. which raises an interesting question.. is it possible to prove one is in motion or perfectly still? SR/GR says no. But there are possibilities. I tried that on Jorrie a few years back and it got real complicated fast. Perhaps fodder for another thread?

Biv,
SUAC?

Springfield Urban Agriculture Coalition?
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Coalition?
Senior University Administrators Course?
Shizuoka University of Art and Culture?
Stratford Upon Avon College?
Space Universities Administrative Committee?
Southern United Agencies Company?
Sydney University Archery Club?
Stoners Uprising Aganst Communism?

I give.. what the heck is SUAC.. Google doesn't help.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Well, it is possible to measure acceleration, so we could throw that into an integrator and assume that we are moving at that velocity relative to our old frame. But, maybe our old frame was moving relative to this one, and we just came to a stop relative to?? See, that's the trouble - you never know what a good reference is, so we have to give up and say that, if you're not accelerating, and you don't get told anything by some other FOR, you must be sitting still. It's a PITA not having something like The Guardians watching and telling you who's moving and who's not. But, there it is. See, I'm not too smart about all this stuff, so I just remember that you can't tell if you're moving at constant velocity, and that keeps me out of trouble.
CanadysPeak
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 31 Dec 2008


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 11th, 2015, 11:57 pm 

Hi CP,

The method requires Clocks. They dilate relative to their velocity compared to light speed and not each other. So if I surround myself with a sphere of clocks, not unlike the GPS system, each in uniform orbit around me, then I should see a pattern in some speeding up while others slow down, unless I'm completely stationary. This pattern is generated by the fact I have some velocity in some specific direction relative to Light Speed (which is relative to the Fabric of Space-Time).

So sometimes the clocks are going faster and sometimes slower.. relative to the absolute speed of light. If I could read all these clocks, I should, in principle, determine my velocity and direction by their clock dilation shifts. What buggers things up, is the One-Way Speed of Light makes it impossible to know what time those clocks have.. due to variable transmission intervals. This was, again, a long thread I had with Jorrie. If I had instantaneous access to those clocks, problem solved and it would work.

I had hoped our GPS system would show such, but we are constantly updating those clocks and positional info due to irregularities in orbitals, making the data too hard to extract for my purpose.

Meanwhile, just based on my intuition, I'm thinking there may be a possible flaw in a co-moving Frame represented by my last Graphic. I accept we can calibrate with all things inertial, by just shooting the Target, but if I move that Target further away and maintain the same pre-Calibrated Geometry (leading my Target by Angle-X, which has become a constant set by my speed), my Photon Bullets will start to lag behind my Target. I think this is a Math Problem I can solve, but will have to make time for it and I just got my mother back from the Hospital today, so there goes most of my free time.

Note: I switched to the term Photon Bullets to imply Ballistics play a role in the Math.

If you, or anyone, wants to chip in with their opinions or proofs, before I get my results, please do. Most will believe that the Geometry will remain constant from a Pythagorean perspective, but the absolute speed of light may throw a monkey wrench into the works possibly. Anyway, just a new twist I've been thinking about today. You can do the same problem by replacing the spaceships with cars on roads and bullets that have a constant velocity with auto-lead-aiming based solely on my velocity. This will become a constant because my speed is a constant. Right now, lack of sleep is dulling my instincts, so I don't trust myself implicitly.

Edit: I was right not to trust myself, just did the math and it works out fine for the Ballistics. So never mind..lol.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Marshall on September 12th, 2015, 4:33 pm 

==quote==
... a sphere of clocks, not unlike the GPS system, each in uniform orbit around me, then I should see a pattern in some speeding up while others slow down, unless I'm completely stationary. This pattern is generated by the fact I have some velocity in some specific direction relative to Light Speed (which is relative to the Fabric of Space-Time).
==endquote==

This is so strange! You keep slipping back into a pre-1905 mind-set, where there is some preferred frame of reference.

The principle of relativity can be thought of as the idea of "democracy of frames". Maybe CP can state it better but that's the general idea. It's fundamental to logic and mechanics as we know them, and to our intuition.
Intuitively you would see no "pattern of clocks speeding up and slowing down"

What could it mean to say "unless I'm completely stationary"?

We don't have to correct GPS clocks for solar system motion. Only correct for their motion and altitude relative to our Earth-based frame.
User avatar
Marshall
Honored Member
 
Posts: 7916
Joined: 17 Oct 2006


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby CanadysPeak on September 12th, 2015, 5:57 pm 

I notice that I haven't stirred the pot yet today.

We don't know whether light travels at c. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. Only God knows how fast light travels, and she's not saying. What we know is that we almost always measure light speed as c, and that's hardly surprising.

Alas.
CanadysPeak
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 31 Dec 2008


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 13th, 2015, 5:11 pm 

Hi all,

1905 mindset? Probably so. I admit my ideas are strongly connected to Newtonian Relativity. The primary difference is I don't use a rigid background but one that has variable Scale at the bottom of Planck smallness (Planck Length).

We would not be able to detect our Motion through the Fabric of Space-Time for two reasons:
1: The data is incredibly insignificant compared to the Noise levels of said satellites constant shifting in terms of Velocity and Distance within our somewhat non-homogeneous Gravitational Field.
2. We sync GPS satellites from a Master Clock here on Earth, subject to same variations in motion through the Fabric of Space-time.. thus erasing any possible information regarding Clock Dilation's due to our planets Stellar Motions.

CP.. C is a constant derived from Motion that involves two variables as Speed and Time. So even if Time turns out to be a constant Universe wide, distance has a Scale issue because distance can be compressed and stretched due to variations in Gravity potentials. Ie: Time is not slower near a black hole but clocks are slower. Clocks don't measure time. It's much more complex.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Inchworm on February 19th, 2016, 2:46 pm 

Hi Dave,

BIV referred me here from my thread there. I think you surrendered too fast in this discussion, because I think I have a way to prove that your laser beam would miss the target. Have a look at my thread and tell me what you think of my reasoning. If I am right, it means that the beam would effectively have to be aimed at an angle to the motion to hit the mirror, but that it would still appear to have been reflected at a right angle to the moving observer due to aberration. That (and doppler effect suffering the same treatment) would be the reason why it is impossible to measure our own absolute direction and speed, nevertheless, I think, and I hope you still think, that it would be possible to prove that there is an absolute rest frame if lasers were not spreading that much with distance, because they would miss an immobile target one way or the other, otherwise we would need to be traveling exactly in the same direction and at the same speed as the universe, which is quite improbable.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Inchworm on February 20th, 2016, 10:56 am 

Dave_Oblad » September 6th, 2015, 9:10 pm wrote:Hi everyone,

After much research I finally found the answer that should satisfy everyone.

My mistake was assuming a view out my window of my sister ship would be a view of history, thus the sister ship would seem to be behind me when it's actually perfectly adjacent to me.

The view I would actually get would have angular aberration due to my velocity. The illusion will be that the sister ship will appear to be ahead of me. Learn something new every day...lol.
You forgot about the beam needing to be aimed at an angle to the motion to hit the mirror, because if it is so, then aberration will only straighten it at right angle to the motion, and it is there that the sister ship will appear to be, as if light had traveled instantaneously. If we apply this to the light clock, there is no difference between the zigzag imagined by the observer and what is happening to his own light clock, so there is no time difference either between clocks moving at different speeds.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Dave_Oblad on February 22nd, 2016, 5:46 pm 

Re: Is inertia correlated to mass?
Hi all,

I've been watching all the physics threads here.. but am under a crunch at work to complete several projects with near impossible deadlines. Will be glad to rejoin in the dialogs, but for now.. I'm almost constantly in panic mode.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Inchworm on February 23rd, 2016, 6:01 pm 

Image

Here is three drawings to illustrate what I say.

Fig. 1 and 2 illustrate aberration, and fig. 3 illustrates a reference frame. Red arrows represent the light rays, and dotted red arrows represent the apparent rays after they have suffered aberration.

At fig. 1, the observer is considered moving from B to B' while the source at A is at rest.
At fig. 2, the observer at B is considered at rest while the source is moving from A to A'.
At fig. 3, the observer is considered moving from B to B' while the source shares the same reference frame from A to A'.

In the three situations, the observer will see the source as if it was actually right over its head, which is not the case in fig. 1 and 2, but which is fortunately the case in fig. 1, and I say fortunately because that source could have moved in any other direction than parallel to the observer after it has sent its light and the motion of the observer would still have produced the same aberration angle "α". This way, there is absolutely no need for reference frames to explain the light clock, so why should there be any time shifting??
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: DaveO's laser ship, a SR chat split from Galileo's rowbo

Postby Inchworm on February 24th, 2016, 12:12 pm 

Faradave told me he could not see my drawings, so I will try another image server.

....Here it is again, anybody doesn't see it?

Image

Here is the text again:

Fig. 1 and 2 illustrate aberration, and fig. 3 illustrates a reference frame. Red arrows represent the light rays, and dotted red arrows represent the apparent rays after they have suffered aberration.

At fig. 1, the observer is considered moving from B to B' while the source at A is at rest.
At fig. 2, the observer at B is considered at rest while the source is moving from A to A'.
At fig. 3, the observer is considered moving from B to B' while the source shares the same reference frame from A to A'.

In the three situations, the observer will see the source as if it was actually right over its head, which is not the case in fig. 1 and 2, but which is fortunately the case in fig. 1, and I say fortunately because that source could have moved in any other direction than parallel to the observer after it has sent its light and the motion of the observer would still have produced the same aberration angle "α". This way, there is absolutely no need for reference frames to explain the light clock, so why should there be any time shifting??
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests