Do We See A Train Arrive That Arrived 8 Minutes Earlier?

[A-wal]

The wavelength/frequency of light is shortened when the observed object is moving towards the observer (blue shifted) and lengthened when the observed object is moving away from the observer (red shifted). That's not length contraction.

 

Space doesn't need to made of an elastic material in order for length contraction to occur, it's purely an observer dependent effect and a natural and unavoidable consequence (along with time dilation) of the speed of light being the same in all inertial frames of reference.

[xyz]

The wavelength/frequency of light is shortened when the observed object is moving towards the observer (blue shifted) and lengthened when the observed object is moving away from the observer (red shifted).

 

And of course that would be completely wrong and an impossibility. Consider that the light starts out as white light/clear light, blue shift is compression of white light , red shift is also a compression of white light, for something to compress there has to be two points contracting. An object moving away from light will show white light not red shift. The physics of red-shift does not work. 

 

added- Consider for a wave-length to get longer i.e red , it would have to be short to begin with, i.e blue. But light in fee space is ''invisible'', (you call it white light. 

Edited August 7, 2016 by xyz

[sluggo]

I expected to see some resolution after 6 pages!

to xyz:

 

What is time?

 

The author of SR didn't believe or promote the idea of an objective time. In contrast, he developed the idea of clock time or time measurement as being motion dependent! It was Minkowski who expressed the time variable as a mathematical 'dimension', but solely for mathematical purposes.

 

Subjective time requires memory, which allows a comparison of a current state to a previous state for any changes, which lends itself to an interpretation of time flowing. Patients with brain damage to specific areas involved in maintaining a personal chronology, lose their ability to estimate elapsed time, short or long term. Consider the fact that people waking from a comatose state, have no memory of how much elapsed time, whether hrs, days, or even years.

Consider one of the greatest misnomers ever used, 'motion pictures' or 'movies', where a person observes a sequence of still photos and the mind melds them to produce moving objects where there is no motion.

 

The simplest argument against the arrow of time, time is a scalar, a magnitude with no direction.

 

The operational definition of assigning a time to an event as mentioned by A.E. in the 1905 paper is essentially what it is, and how it's been done since humans appeared.

It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure and ordering of activity, with 'time' always increasing/accumulating.

It is an accounting scheme developed out of practical necessity, for human activities like agriculture, business, travel, science, etc. The unit of measure for time initially referred to relative positions of astronomical objects, stars, sun, and moon, which implies earth rotations and earth orbits. The year equates to the periodic motion of the earth relative to the sun, the month, the moon relative to the earth, and the day, the earth rotation relative to the stars. All units of time are by definition, involving spatial motion or distance. The clock further divides the day into smaller units of measure. The reference in the 1905 paper of the watch hand to a position on the watch face involves nothing more than counting hand cycles (hand motion of specific distances representing subdivisions of a day). Finally, with the present day light clock, with internal light oscillations between an emitter and a mirror spaced a distance d, the time t represents a quantity of light motion equal to 2kdc, i.e. a distance labeled as 'time'.

Edited August 7, 2016 by sluggo

[xyz]

 

 

The simplest argument against the arrow of time, time is a scalar, a magnitude with no direction.

 

I would agree with that.

[sluggo]

Many debates are not about physics but semantics. So you got a short history of "time" with an emphasis on the mind connection. 

SR is also a theory of perception, since the observer is always dealing with images. 

         fig.3                           fig.4

 

The phenomenon of time dilation is introduced via the light clock.

In fig.3 light is emitted from a source in a direction p, perpendicular to x, the direction of motion, and reflects from a mirror a distance d=1, to a detector/counter. For the clock to function, the photon path must have an x and p component. The x component compensates for the motion of the clock at speed v. The p component becomes the active part of the clock. Since the photon speed is constant, its path in any direction generates a circular arc for the 90º between the p axis and x axis. This means the relative photon speed u, along p, equals c*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = c/γ, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past an observer. This phenomenon is not restricted to clocks but applies to all processes involving light interactions. Fig.4 is the perception of the observer moving with the clock that is simultaneous with the static observer in fig.3.

Hope this helps.

[xyz]

Many debates are not about physics but semantics. So you got a short history of "time" with an emphasis on the mind connection. 

SR is also a theory of perception, since the observer is always dealing with images. 

light clock2.gif

         fig.3                           fig.4

 

The phenomenon of time dilation is introduced via the light clock.

In fig.3 light is emitted from a source in a direction p, perpendicular to x, the direction of motion, and reflects from a mirror a distance d=1, to a detector/counter. For the clock to function, the photon path must have an x and p component. The x component compensates for the motion of the clock at speed v. The p component becomes the active part of the clock. Since the photon speed is constant, its path in any direction generates a circular arc for the 90º between the p axis and x axis. This means the relative photon speed u, along p, equals c*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = c/γ, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past an observer. This phenomenon is not restricted to clocks but applies to all processes involving light interactions. Fig.4 is the perception of the observer moving with the clock that is simultaneous with the static observer in fig.3.

Hope this helps.

No, the light is only emitted towards the observer, like the light from your screen is emitted towards you.  

 

 

example - look at this vector represented by the dots

 

 

.............................................................................................................................................................

 

 

Imagine this vector is a beam of light travelling c left to right. 

 

 

Wrong, 

 

the light is not travelling from left to right, it is travelling from each point in a linearity towards you. 

 

 

You are not seeing vector X, you are seeing vector Y.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

The light never travels left to right . r remains constant in a circle relative to a central observer, this can be extended to a sphere, relativity is parlour tricks. 

 

And I am sorry but your diagrams I can't understand, (they are just not ''pretty'' enough)

Edited August 9, 2016 by xyz

[sluggo]

No, the light is only emitted towards the observer, like the light from your screen is emitted towards you.  

 

 

example - look at this vector represented by the dots

 

 

.............................................................................................................................................................

 

 

Imagine this vector is a beam of light travelling c left to right. 

 

 

Wrong, 

 

the light is not travelling from left to right, it is travelling from each point in a linearity towards you. 

 

 

You are not seeing vector X, you are seeing vector Y.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

The light never travels left to right . r remains constant in a circle relative to a central observer, this can be extended to a sphere, relativity is parlour tricks. 

 

And I am sorry but your diagrams I can't understand, (they are just not ''pretty'' enough)

Light moves outward from its point of origin and its speed is independent of the source.

The light must move to the mirror M and return. The light must compensate for the moving mirror.

While the light has reached the static mirror, it has only moved .8 of the distance to the mirror in fig.4.

[A-wal]

The light never travels left to right . r remains constant in a circle relative to a central observer, this can be extended to a sphere, relativity is parlour tricks.

:) You not understanding it doesn't make it wrong, it makes your understanding wrong. For light to move at the same speed past two or more observers that are in motion relative to each other is only possible if those observers measure the light moving through length contracted space over time dilated time when they're compare themselves to other frames of reference. That's the only way the speed of light can be the same for all of them.

 

If you're shining a torch towards an object that's moving away from you at half the speed of light then without time dilation and length contraction the object would have to measure the torch light passing them at half the speed of light but they don't, they measure it moving past them at the full speed of light. How? Because speed is a measure of distance over time so the light is moving through length contracted space, making the distance shorter and moving slower through time, making it take less time to cover the same distance and the two together make the light pass them at the full speed of light despite their relative motion away from the source of the light.

 

This isn't speculative. We know that the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers and this is the only way that could happen.

[xyz]

Light moves outward from its point of origin and its speed is independent of the source.

The light must move to the mirror M and return. The light must compensate for the moving mirror.

While the light has reached the static mirror, it has only moved .8 of the distance to the mirror in fig.4.

Can we stop talking ''sciency'' for a moment, I have no idea of what you or Awal is trying to express.  My original question is about the 8 minute delay between sight and source such as the Sun to Earth travel of the Photon.  Can you first please tell me what you are trying to tell/learn me in simple terms ?

 

 

What I will say is all the experiments you perform using light , the observation of the light beams etc are all observed in the Quanta whole that is invisible of free space.  Your beams/Photons etc ''you'' are isolating from the free space whole, none of your experiments affect the Quanta whole.  Too me , you are saying that if a piece of string that was taught was to slacken inside a huge invisible light sphere, this in some way affects the light sphere, however that which is internal does not affect the ''casing''. 

If you were to remove the term length and considered free space without boundary i.e infinite, then every single one of ''your'' ideas collapses.  Not a single person who I have spoke to on forums over several years, seams to know how to interpret information correctly, I am honestly telling you although my explanation is poorer than I understand it, that you have it all so wrong. I really wish I could just talk open on these forums and even maybe add a few swear words and insults, but obviously I would get banned. 

 

 

When I say I understand, I mean I Understand.  

 

And if you are putting an angle on a mirror, then it is more distance not less time. 

[A-wal]

Can we stop talking ''sciency'' for a moment, I have no idea of what you or Awal is trying to express.  My original question is about the 8 minute delay between sight and source such as the Sun to Earth travel of the Photon.

:) This is as simple and non-technical as it gets. We are not speaking 'sciency'!

 

Can you first please tell me what you are trying to tell/learn me in simple terms ?

Light moving at the same speed past two or more observers that are in motion relative to each other is only possible if those observers measure the light moving through length contracted space over time dilated time when they're compare themselves to other frames of reference. That's the only possible way the speed of light can be the same for all of them, as we know it is.

 

What I will say is all the experiments you perform using light , the observation of the light beams etc are all observed in the Quanta whole that is invisible of free space.  Your beams/Photons etc ''you'' are isolating from the free space whole, none of your experiments affect the Quanta whole.  Too me , you are saying that if a piece of string that was taught was to slacken inside a huge invisible light sphere, this in some way affects the light sphere, however that which is internal does not affect the ''casing''.

Nonsensical BS again. Time dilation and length contraction are purely observer dependent, they vary between different frames of reference by definition.

 

If you were to remove the term length and considered free space without boundary i.e infinite, then every single one of ''your'' ideas collapses.

It makes absolutely no difference whether special relativity is describing frames of reference in a finite or infinite universe. Why the hell would it? It's based on the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference as I keep telling you.

 

Not a single person who I have spoke to on forums over several years, seams to know how to interpret information correctly,

Yet you think the problem lies with everyone else and not with you. You're the one who can't interpret the information correctly, as you've shown in virtually every post.

 

I am honestly telling you although my explanation is poorer than I understand it, that you have it all so wrong.

You're very deluded!

 

I really wish I could just talk open on these forums and even maybe add a few swear words and insults, but obviously I would get banned. 

I'd really like to be in a position where I was free to speak openly towards you as well.

 

When I say I understand, I mean I Understand.

It doesn't matter what you mean or how much you mean it, you clearly don't understand it.

 

And if you are putting an angle on a mirror, then it is more distance not less time. 

The extra distance affects measurements of time and space because the speed of light has to remain CONSTANT!

[sluggo]

Can we stop talking ''sciency'' for a moment, I have no idea of what you or Awal is trying to express.  My original question is about the 8 minute delay between sight and source such as the Sun to Earth travel of the Photon.  Can you first please tell me what you are trying to tell/learn me in simple terms ?

 

 

In the triangle of A, B, C, with 8 light min spacing, each sends a signal to the others at 12:00.

The A signal arrives at B at 12:08. That image of the B clock arrives at A at 12:16.

That is A's proof that the signal got there.

[xyz]

In the triangle of A, B, C, with 8 light min spacing, each sends a signal to the others at 12:00.

The A signal arrives at B at 12:08. That image of the B clock arrives at A at 12:16.

That is A's proof that the signal got there.

Scratches head!  No that is wrong. 

 

A rocket leaves Earth travelling at c (hypothetical) at 12, we observe the rocket takes 8 minutes to arrive at the Sun, we observe the entire journey, we observe and see the rocket arrives at 12.08, we do not see the rocket arriving at 12.16 because we can see the entire journey of the rocket all at the same time because free space is not opaque and crystal clear. 

[xyz]

:) This is as simple and non-technical as it gets. We are not speaking 'sciency'!

 

Light moving at the same speed past two or more observers that are in motion relative to each other is only possible if those observers measure the light moving through length contracted space over time dilated time when they're compare themselves to other frames of reference. That's the only possible way the speed of light can be the same for all of them, as we know it is.

 

Nonsensical BS again. Time dilation and length contraction are purely observer dependent, they vary between different frames of reference by definition.

 

It makes absolutely no difference whether special relativity is describing frames of reference in a finite or infinite universe. Why the hell would it? It's based on the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference as I keep telling you.

 

Yet you think the problem lies with everyone else and not with you. You're the one who can't interpret the information correctly, as you've shown in virtually every post.

 

You're very deluded!

 

I'd really like to be in a position where I was free to speak openly towards you as well.

 

It doesn't matter what you mean or how much you mean it, you clearly don't understand it.

 

The extra distance affects measurements of time and space because the speed of light has to remain CONSTANT!

Sorry Awal , I know you are trying to help me learn, but you are not objective and remain subjective to education which will not help me ''learn''. 

 

Think for yourself .

 

 

I move away from you expanding my radius away , I move away from you at 100mph, In 1 hour I have moved 100 mile, 

 

 

I left at 12, I arrive at 1 at the 100 mile marker, can you tell me what time you see me arriving at the marker? 

 

 

You see me arriving at 1, because you followed my entire journey, you could see me all the way. 

 

 

Do you agree?

 

''Mission commander Neil Armstrong and pilot Buzz Aldrin landed the lunar module Eagle on July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC.''  We followed the entire journey.

 

 

Let me put in some vector maths

 

 

rocket ship +ve=c=1s

 

light from rocket ship  -ve=c=1s

 

net t difference =t₀

 

one cancels the other. The constant speed of light shows no time dilation, ''you'' only account for a one way trip, ''you'' are incomplete. 

 

look! try it this way 

 

 

A photon leaves earth on a journey to the sun simultaneous to a photon leaving the sun on a journey to earth, the constant speed of both photons produces a constant time , both ''observers'' the earth and the sun observe each other simultaneous because of the constant of light, the r could contract or expand and this would make no difference to the observation, your lack of vigour is incompleteness. A one way trip is incomplete. 

 

 

Look, 

 

Earth........r............sun

 

 

Earth........................................................r...................................................................sun

 

ONLY the velocity of the observer can change the relative speed of light, take note relative speed is not an actual decrease or increase in the speed of light, it is an increase or decrease in distance at a speed that in affect quickens the interception time of Photons being emitted from the approached or de-approached point. 

 

 

 

the speed of light remains constant between points. 

Edited August 14, 2016 by xyz

[sluggo]

Scratches head!  No that is wrong. 

 

A rocket leaves Earth travelling at c (hypothetical) at 12, we observe the rocket takes 8 minutes to arrive at the Sun, we observe the entire journey, we observe and see the rocket arrives at 12.08, we do not see the rocket arriving at 12.16 because we can see the entire journey of the rocket all at the same time because free space is not opaque and crystal clear. 

If the rocket traveling at the speed of light takes 8 min to get there, shouldn't light also take 8 min to return?

[A-wal]

:hammer:

[pzkpfw]

If the rocket traveling at the speed of light takes 8 min to get there, shouldn't light also take 8 min to return?

xyz claims to accept that light has a finite speed, but also thinks that once there is light between source and observer, any observation is instant.

 

That's what he means by "because we can see the entire journey of the rocket all at the same time because free space is not opaque and crystal clear" in that post.

 

It's why discussing this stuff with him is absolutely pointless. Since he can't let go of this silly idea, he'll never accept any explanation from currently known science.

[xyz]

If the rocket traveling at the speed of light takes 8 min to get there, shouldn't light also take 8 min to return?

When the rocket ship has taken 1 minute to reach an 8th of the journey the light has took 1 minute to return , when the rocket has travelled 2 minutes the light takes 2 minutes , when the rocket has travelled the full distance of 8 minutes, the light takes 8 minutes . 

 

See diagram here - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68030.0

 

sorry I am  unable to upload pics on here.

Edited August 16, 2016 by xyz