Questions To Special Relativity

[Vmedvil2]

Completely unrelated but Corrections for the unruh effect in the CMBR might counter some arguments here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_background_radiation

well, I think that the Unruh effect is bullshit, there is like zero evidence that the Unruh effect even exists, thus is crank science.

Edited March 15, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

That is a possibility along with Hawking radiation, however https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00043 if there is evidence for it would you change your mind.

Well at-least there used to be no evidence that the Unruh Effect was real.

Edited March 15, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[OceanBreeze]

Sorry I tuned out of this conversation so I don't know what you guys have been writing about but I woke up this morning with a related question of my own.

 

Suppose two WWI biplanes were flying parallel to each other at some distance apart so their relative velocity is zero. One tries to shoot the other one down so he sets the horizontal angle of his gun at 90^o to his plane since he figures their relative velocity of zero is the same as if they were just parked on a runway some distance apart. He fires but misses and sees his tracer bullets always lag the other plane. So he compensates for wind speed and no longer misses the other plane because his plane's forward velocity gives the bullet a sideways velocity to keep up with the other plane's velocity. This is Newtonian physics.

 

Now the same scenario but with two parallel spaceships at .9c so their relative velocity is also zero.One tries to shoot down the other with a laser beam so he sets the horizontal angle of his gun at 90^o to his ship since he figures their relative velocity of zero is the same as if they were just parked on a runway some distance apart. He fires but misses and sees his beam always lags the other ship. This time there's no wind speed to compensate for. The MMX proved there is no ether wind so why is the beam missing. Well, it's due to the relativistic aberration of light. He has to compensate for that in order to hit the other ship.

 

Unfortunately this action breaks the cardinal rule of relativity; there is no way in constant relative motion to tell you're moving. Your relative velocity to the other ship is zero but the angle of your laser gun says you're both moving relative to some absolute reference point because it would be at 90^o if you weren't. Unlike the bullets from a biplane, the speed of your ship can't push light sideways. I must be missing some fundamental understanding of relativity but to me the phenomenon of the aberration of light seems to disprove relativity which obviously can't be right.

 

I wish I could ask this question on the PSX but my ban is still in effect. Even if I could ask this question, it would immediately re-instate my ban because 99.999% of them are closed minded and can't understand my questions.

 

 

You answered your own question. It is the aberration of light that changes the angle of trajectory of the light beam as seen by the distant observer. There is no need for the angle of the laser gun to be changed, it still points out at 90 degrees from the direction of travel.

 

All you are doing here is describing the light clock, which has been covered many times in this forum as well as elsewhere.

[TonyYuan2020]

Any of them they all have the same reference frame, all traveling at exactly C.

 

According to the previous discussion, we know that V in that γ (V) = sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) is the relative speed with the earth as the reference, but now you said “any of them they all have the same reference frame, all traveling at exactly C.” , In other words that all speed are with photons as the reference. So what is the relationship between the earth speed Vep with photon as reference and the spacecraft speed Vsp with photon as reference, and the spacecraft speed V with earth as reference? We assume that the time rate function of relative photons is K (V).

 

Now there is a spaceship with a speed v relative to the earth . let's assume that the time of photon passing is T, time of earth relative photon is t = K (Vep) * T, and time of spaceship relative photon is t '= K (Vep + v) * T.

 

According to the special theory of relativity t '= t * γ (v),  K (Vep + v) * T= K (Vep) * T* γ (v) is obtained by substituting t and t', which is simplified to:

K(Vep + v) = γ (v) * K (Vep), substituting v = - v to get

K(Vep - v) = γ (-v) * K (Vep)

Since K (Vep + v) ! = K (Vep-v), so γ (v) ! = γ (- v), but γ (v) = γ (- v) = sqrt (1-v^2 / C^2) does not conform. So there must be a problem with this γ (v).

 

"any of them they all have the same reference frame, all traveling at exactly C" , the introduction of this absolute thing is still unable to prove the correctness of special relativity.

[ralfcis]

Yikes, you're right Popeye. I have done this same mistake many times before screwing up who's the observer but this time was really bad. I mean that's relativity 101.

Edited March 15, 2020 by ralfcis

[TonyYuan2020]

That is because relative to the light's velocity the objects are still moving, light only travels at C, it is not instantaneous the motion of the photons so you would have to correct for the time it takes the photons to reach the location, the photons are moving at 0 velocity in the direction they are moving .9C, light as a particle moves in a direction at C but not all directions. Basically it moves away from the source of it at C.

 

Basically, the resultant vector is V = C not the parts of the vector.

 

How do you know the speed of the ship? How do you estimate the advance of this displacement. There is no reference except for the relatively static spacecraft on the opposite side.

It's hard for me to believe that you can make such an explanation. According to your logic (very Newtonian Classic), the Morley experiment successfully observed the movement of interference fringes 100 years ago.

”Special relativity "tells us that in any inertial reference system, the speed of light does not change. In two relatively static spacecraft inertial reference systems, vertical launch can directly hit each other's spacecraft.

 

The measurement of the speed of light on the earth is constant. It is just as interesting to assume that the speed of light is constant as the measurement of the speed of sound in an airplane.

But in solving practical problems, supporters often use classical physics to give answers.

 

Newton's classical physics can fully explain the Morey experiment, the mass energy equation, and the bending of light. But maybe it's because Newtonian physics is too simple for us to show our scientific ability. But it's really bad for the development of science. Special relativity should be classified into mathematical games.

[TonyYuan2020]

Yikes, you're right Popeye. I have done this same mistake many times before screwing up who's the observer but this time was really bad.

 

My friend , You give a good example. It's very easy to solve with classical physics, but it's very difficult to solve with special relativity.

[ralfcis]

Tony I'm going to try to understand your math by re-writing it into a format I understand.

 

γ (V) = sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) translates to Y= c/sqrt(c²-v²) (Try using the blue bar above to write your equations)

The rest I can't translate. What is K? The only relative velocity to c is c unlike what I think Victor is saying.

 

The last equation is γ (v) = γ (- v) = sqrt (1-v^2 / C^2) does not conform? Why not?  -v² = v^2.. Actually never mind I'm not interested.

[TonyYuan2020]

Tony I'm going to try to understand your math by re-writing it into a format I understand.

 

γ (V) = sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) translates to Y= c/sqrt(c²-v²) (Try using the blue bar above to write your equations)

The rest I can't translate. What is K? The only relative velocity to c is c unlike what I think Victor is saying.

 

My answer:

Y(V) is time rate function relative to the earth.

K(V) is time rate function relative to the photon as Victor said.

 

K(Vep + v) = γ (v) * K (Vep)

K(Vep - v) = γ (-v) * K (Vep)     

as a result of K(Vep + v)  Not equal to   K(Vep - v), so γ (v)  must  Not equal to   γ (-v) . 

 

For example: t '= t * sqrt (1-V ^ 2 / C ^ 2), where sqrt (1-V ^ 2 / C ^ 2) is the time rate, which is a function of relative speed.

 

 

The last equation is γ (v) = γ (- v) = sqrt (1-v^2 / C^2) does not conform? Why not?  -v² = v^2.. Actually never mind I'm not interested.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by TonyYuan2020

[Vmedvil2]

Tony I'm going to try to understand your math by re-writing it into a format I understand.

 

γ (V) = sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) translates to Y= c/sqrt(c²-v²) (Try using the blue bar above to write your equations)

The rest I can't translate. What is K? The only relative velocity to c is c unlike what I think Victor is saying.

 

The last equation is γ (v) = γ (- v) = sqrt (1-v^2 / C^2) does not conform? Why not?  -v² = v^2.. Actually never mind I'm not interested.

What I am saying is this when you take the equation γ (V) = sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) then you are taking the ratio between that velocity and C, as the equation says (V²/C²) thus ultimately it is taking the velocity relative to C.

Edited March 15, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

 

How do you know the speed of the ship? How do you estimate the advance of this displacement. There is no reference except for the relatively static spacecraft on the opposite side.

It's hard for me to believe that you can make such an explanation. According to your logic (very Newtonian Classic), the Morley experiment successfully observed the movement of interference fringes 100 years ago.

”Special relativity "tells us that in any inertial reference system, the speed of light does not change. In two relatively static spacecraft inertial reference systems, vertical launch can directly hit each other's spacecraft.

 

The measurement of the speed of light on the earth is constant. It is just as interesting to assume that the speed of light is constant as the measurement of the speed of sound in an airplane.

But in solving practical problems, supporters often use classical physics to give answers.

 

Newton's classical physics can fully explain the Morey experiment, the mass energy equation, and the bending of light. But maybe it's because Newtonian physics is too simple for us to show our scientific ability. But it's really bad for the development of science. Special relativity should be classified into mathematical games.

 

You are confused as Newtonian Mechanics is wrong and Relativity is correct, The failings of Newtonian Mechanics is the reason relativity exists. I already told you the answer to your question, it is exactly this diagram.

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[TonyYuan2020]

You are confused as Newtonian Mechanics is wrong and Relativity is correct, The failings of Newtonian Mechanics is the reason relativity exists. I already told you the answer to your question, it is exactly this diagram.

 

Newton's classical theory can well explain the Moley experiment, mass energy equation, light bending, and special relativity to explain a very simple scene are very difficult and contradictory. 

[TonyYuan2020]

You are confused as Newtonian Mechanics is wrong and Relativity is correct, The failings of Newtonian Mechanics is the reason relativity exists. I already told you the answer to your question, it is exactly this diagram.

 

 

How do you know the speed of the ship? How do you estimate the advance of this displacement. There is no reference except for the relatively static spacecraft on the opposite side.

[Vmedvil2]

How do you know the speed of the ship? How do you estimate the advance of this displacement. There is no reference except for the relatively static spacecraft on the opposite side.

Read this on how to add the velocities and gammas, Link = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

Edited March 15, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

"the speed of light is constant as the measurement of the speed of sound in an airplane"

 

I made the same mistake when I first started out. The difference between sound's fixed relative velocity to its medium and light's fixed relative velocity to its medium is that you can have a relative velocity to sound's medium but you can't have one to light's medium (which is the electromagnetic properties of a vacuum). You can move air (wind). You can move relative to air. So while sound's relative velocity is fixed to air, your relative velocity to sound, through its medium, is not fixed. The MMX proved there is no ether wind in space and there is no relative velocity to the vacuum of space itself even though there is relative velocity to material points in space.

[TonyYuan2020]

"the speed of light is constant as the measurement of the speed of sound in an airplane"

 

I made the same mistake when I first started out. The difference between sound's fixed relative velocity to its medium and light's fixed relative velocity to its medium is that you can have a relative velocity to sound's medium but you can't have one to light's medium (which is the electromagnetic properties of a vacuum). You can move air (wind). You can move relative to air. So while sound's relative velocity is fixed to air, your relative velocity to sound, through its medium, is not fixed. The MMX proved there is no ether wind in space and there is no relative velocity to the vacuum of space itself even though there is relative velocity to material points in space.

 

LIGO is enough to prove the influence of gravitational field on light. Light on the surface of the earth is held by the gravitational field of the earth, so the speed of light measured anywhere on the earth is the same.

[Vmedvil2]

LIGO is enough to prove the influence of gravitational field on light. Light on the surface of the earth is held by the gravitational field of the earth, so the speed of light measured anywhere on the earth is the same.

that is false only in a black hole does light get "Held" by gravity, it does have a effect but as I said due to the weakness of gravity it has a very small effect on the light near earth.