My problem with einstein

[HydrogenBond]

One way to look at it, when light leaves the source, the speed of light is not connected to the source or the motion of the source, but is moving under the beat of its own drum. The C is not being pushed or pulled, by the velocity of the moving source, but the wavelength and frequency will be.

 

To make light, we will use some form of physical affect or chemical reaction, where mass or force is converted to energy. At the point of conversion, light enters an absolute reference, no matter what moving reference we are using. It is an absolute reference or we would get motion affects that are reference dependent. The wavelength and frequency will be reference dependent with forward or backward coming out different. That is called the doppler affect. This is not part of the absolute reference, because it can appear different based on your reference.

[CraigD]

Yes, we must conclude the same thing, that time dilation occurs just as with the previous example.

umm okay i see about 10 things wrong with coming to that conclusion. firslty, if i asked 10 scientists if they thought sound waves dilate time, i would bank on at least 9 of them saying no. diregarding that the speed of light is much faster than the speed of sound, they cannot both dilate time, else there wouldn't be a faster speed. also, SR says nothing about sound only light

Phillip, I think you’re getting confused by statements containing too many similar sounding terms, such as “the speed of light”, “the speed of sound”, “light waves” and “sound waves”. As when making calculations based on any scientific theory, it’s important to state precisely what quantities are involved, and the laws governing them. In the case of SR, and this discussion, it’s important to state precisely what causes time dilation, and that what does not cause it, does not.

 

Time dilation is the ratio of the duration of an event (in this discussion, how long it takes a light signal to travel from a cars headlight to a wall) measured by observers in motion relative to one another. It’s defined by the equation

[math]\frac{t'}{t} = \sqrt{1 -\left( \frac{V}{c} \right)^2} [/math]

where [math]t[/math] is the duration measure by a observer arbitrarily deemed stationary, [math]t'[/math] the duration measured by an observer with speed [math]V[/math] relative to the first, and [math]c[/math] the speed of light in vacuum.

 

Because [math]1[/math] and [math]c[/math] are constants, the only quantity determining [math]\frac{t'}{t}[/math] is [math]V[/math]. It’s not determined by the speed of light, the speed of sound, the magnitude of [math]t[/math] or [math] t' [/math] any other measurable quantity or phenomenon. It’s not caused by light – it would occur even in a universe with no photons – or sound waves – it would occur in a universe with no sound – that is, no vibrations in any medium.

 

It isn’t necessary to know anything about sound, the wave-particle dual nature of light, the composition of matter, or any of the many other classical and quantum mechanical phenomena that are subject to SR, to understand SR. As a theory, SR would work as well in a universe where the fundamental particles of quantum mechanics were completely different, or even a universe where energy and matter weren’t restricted to discrete quanta, but followed classical physical laws on all scales. All that SR requires is that the laws governing distance, duration, and light signals are well defined, and its two postulates: that these laws are the same within an inertial frame regardless that frame’s motion relative to any others; and that the speed of light in vacuum is constant regardless of the relative motion of its source and receiver.

[phillip1882]

i guess what i'm after is an experiment that demonstrates time dilation with respect to light that can't be similarly replicated with sound. maybe if i had that i could accept light as under the affects of time dilation.

(and no simply putting light in a vacuum doesnt count.)

[belovelife]

I thought we detected nutrenos by storing heavy water underground, and while observing the heavy water, we observed red blinks of light and then it was defined that the nutreno was knocking the extra nuetron from the nucleus of the hydrogen in the heavy water. This being the only interation with what we observe.

 

(is this rambling)

Now according to the math, it is possible there are multiple universes. All I was saying was like matter mediums and sound, light could travel at different speeds in different "space-time"s, or a different universe.

[Qfwfq]

if i am running tward a distant wall at a speed of 20 miles an hour and throw an apple at 30 miles in a hour tward a wall, the apple would be traveling at 50 miles an hour tward the distant wall. if i were stopped, it would be going 30 miles an hour. in reverse, 10 miles an hour.

Not exactly.

 

If you work it out with the Lorentz transformations, you could even calculate the slight discrepancy. When you talk about things having a velocity of c, or near it, the discrepancy is not slight at all.

 

I thought we detected nutrenos by storing heavy water underground, and...

More or less, yes we did. But what's this got to do with Norwegian kangaroos? Please try to keep to the topic. :lol:

 

(is this rambling)

Now according to the math, it is possible...

Yes, this is rambling. ;)

[Pyrotex]

To Q and Craig,

though I'm not wizard level at SR, I do have a thorough basic understanding of the principals. And I have a little criticism of your posts. They are "aimed" at someone like ME who already knows how to dodge around the illusory "paradoxes" between sound-waves and light-waves. Your posts contain too many complicated "asides" and other distractions and irrelevant details. They're even hard for ME to follow. Remember who your audience is in this thread. Try something simpler. Drop the math.