New law..?

[arkain101]

Alright I am slowly going to be putting together some laws and thought experiments over the next while that are geared towards explaining function of the universe. In doing so I hope to show flaw in special relativity and a mistake in light speed constant assumption.

 

Anyhow this new law states. (bare with me since this is the first time I plan to write it out in words from logic and experiments.)

 

All sources of light are on frequencies. All frequencies of light emmiting objects on the move will act in two different ways relative to the observers point of view. The literal act of the observer will transform the object from acting in motion or rest.

 

This is, an object moving past an observer who's eyes or measureing device remains in a fixed posistion (this is not staying targeted on the moving object) as the object moves by will pulsate, this means it will appear to have distance between each individual pulse.

 

An observer who's eyes or measureing device remains fixed targeted on the moving object will create the object to act at rest and the object will not visually pulsate.

 

Example. 1

 

There is a bright LED light located on a missile. It flashes at a speed of 60hertz. There is an observer. He is standing on the ground.

 

The missile flies by at the speed of around 1000mph. Perpendicular to the direction the observer is facing.

 

When the observer watches the light and tracks it with his eyes, the light will act as though it is at rest. The observer will see a single light fly by his point of view just as if it were sitting in front of him.

 

When the observer fixes his eye on a stationary object in the path of the missile. The LED light will act differently. It will begin to show distance between each pulse of light and it will look as though there are more than one light passing through the sky.

 

 

Example 2.

 

A person holds a 10 foot rope. On the end of this rope is a LED light which flashes close to the speed of 60hertz. The Person spins the rope over his head. His eyes are fixed on a stationary object in front of him. As he begins spinning the rope faster and faster he will begin to see the light create more and more distance between each pulse creating the image that there is more than one light. Where what is happening is he is, relative to his point of view, making the object act as though it has velocity and visible distance between pulses will occur.

 

If the person was to spin to rope and keep his eye fixed on the light, the light would not change and would act as though it is at rest.

 

 

There was that article about ejected star. I am not sure if this is a real picture of the star, but here is an example of this law in action. The telescope was pointed in a fixed posistion creating a puslated view of the moving object.

[arkain101]

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/5303-star-run.html

Article on the ejected star.

[Queso]

this reminds me of my moogerfooger ring modulator.

Also known as my best friend.

This is interesting stuff, give me a few days to comprehend.

I'll be listening.

[arkain101]

will be re-posted

[arkain101]

keeping topic on topic.

what was here will be posted again later

[arkain101]

.

[kamil]

The thought experiment is first of all flawed in some of the detail of its logic. The photon that travels in the train is not visible to the observer at rest. The only way for the observer to imagine seeing the photon was if other photons were coming from the train, perpendicular to the angle of the trains travel towards the observer and hitting his eye. The distance for the light to travel from the train to the observer would remain in that moment of observation, unrelativly changed. So the 'velocity' of the train would be irrelevent to the observer as it travels perpendicualr to his angle of view.

 

This thought experiment is not flawed. Its just written in a oversimplified way. When we say 'the observer see's the light....' we actually mean 'from the inertial frame stationary with the train tracks, the light is measured' What we see we can conclude what actually happened. E.g: Because it takes light 8min to travel from the sun to us, then if we see the sun at 7:00 then then we conclude that this what the sun was like at 6:52.

When these adjustments are made you will actually work out that according to different frames, certain events happen at different time.

 

THis is a very interesting thread but i am busy at the moment, I'll try to write more tommorow.

[arkain101]

.

[InfiniteNow]

Alright I am slowly going to be putting together some laws and thought experiments over the next while that are geared towards explaining function of the universe. In doing so I hope to show flaw in special relativity and a mistake in light speed constant assumption.

Well, at least nobody here will be able to say you're not ambitious...

[cwes99_03]

Where what is happening is he is,

 

Ah Arkain, it's good to see that some things never change about you and your posts.

[arkain101]

lol..

 

correction,

"Where as, what is happening is, he is...."

 

correction,

Alright I am slowly going to be putting together some laws and thought experiments over the next while that are geared towards explaining some functions of the universe differently. In doing so I hope to show flaw in special relativity and a mistake in light speed constant assumption from misinterpratations of experimental data.

 

I just see a different way to describe the results of past experiments.

[CraigD]

Feels like old times again, arkain. Let me see if I can find some holes in your proposals…

All sources of light are on frequencies. All frequencies of light emmiting objects on the move will act in two different ways relative to the observers point of view. …There is a bright LED light located on a missile. It flashes at a speed of 60hertz.

I think there’s a fundamental confusion here. Light – even a single quantum of it – has a frequency. For visible light, we call the frequency color – blue is about 3.8*10^14 hz, red about 7.5*10^14, the other colors in between. Light can be pulsed – emitted, then stopped, then emitted, etc. – at any rate a device is physically capable of, usually in bursts of many (10^30 +) photons, though its possible to emit single photons.

 

Although most natural and artificial light-pulsing sources pulse at a much slower rate (about 10^13 times) than the light’s frequency, it’s possible to pulse it at a faster rate than the light’s frequency. The rate at which individual photons in un-pulsed “beam” of photons can be measured, either directly, or statistically, and is related to the beams intensity

 

There’s no relationship between these 2 “frequencies”. Blue light can be pulsed slowly, read light rapidly. Red light can be very intense – deliver many photons in a particular volume of space at a particular time – while blue light can be very faint.

 

The rest of your idea seems to be related to the “light clock” Special Relativity thought experiment. I see you’re rewriting parts of it some of your later posts, so I won’t comment on this right now.

[arkain101]

Okay, I think I see what you mean about pusling. I dont think we are on the same page related to this.

 

I couldnt do it with math but, according to this law, if you were to have a red star flying through space at around .8C There could be spaces between the waves of the frequency of the light. I dont know the calculations exactly. So I cant say what speed would be required to put distance between wave fronts.

But the law simply says, depending if you track the object with your 'eye' or not will determine whether or not you notice these distances between frequency of light waves.

I used the example of a slowly pulsating LED light because it shuts on and off quickly and pulses slowly enough to create easy visual results. Where as it logically will be the same for a light source with 3.8*10^14 hz that is traveling fast enough to put angles of different source points on the wave fronts to make it look like distance between each sight of the object. If we were to test this with a star or light traveling nearly C and our human eye it would act more like a streak of light than it would individual images. While if you tracked it with your eye somehow it would look like it was at rest, (no streak or gaps)

 

It is obviously and effect from how the light is being angled in your eye onto your retina. But whether or not this law has been concluded before or not I am not sure. That is why I labled this New Law (?).

[CraigD]

…according to this law, if you were to have a red star flying through space at around .8C There could be spaces between the waves of the frequency of the light.

I see how you could get that impression from the hypography image you posted. However, as the original ESO image clearly notes

it is an artist’s impression, meant, I think, to give an sense of how unusually fast blue giant star HE 0437-5439 is moving.

But the law simply says, depending if you track the object with your 'eye' or not will determine whether or not you notice these distances between frequency of light waves.

there’s no observational evidence, on any scale, that this happens, nor any widely accepted fundamental theory that predicts it.

 

This is simply not the way light works. One “sees” light, either with ones eyes or via an instrument, when one or more photons interacts with the matter of your eye or of the instrument. The frequency of the light is exactly determined by the amount of energy each photon has, and has nothing to do with the number of photons, not the amount of time that passes between receiving them. Regardless of color, a moving light will always appear as a streak, unless it is switched off and on, is extraordinarily faint, or the detection device capable of measuring very short time intervals corresponding to the arrival of individual photons.

 

Gaps in images of the path of moving objects are either relics of the device used to record them, or artistic techniques meant to give a sense of motion to a static image. They are not indicative of the waves associated with moving particles, such as photons.

 

Your New Law doesn’t describe reality – a damning weakness in any physics theory. I recommend you discard it.

[arkain101]

I hear what your saying man.

 

I see how you could get that impression from the hypography image you posted. However, as the original ESO image clearly notes

 

I did not get this impression from any image. In fact I stated that I dont think this image is a real replication of what happened.

 

I made this statement and possible law from several experiments and evidence. Through some thought experiments I felt confident in apply this law to any object which has a frequency. It kind of states the obvious, but more of an obvious which is unknown.

 

Think about the LED light spinning around the persons head example. It only flashes at 60 hertz, but take that evidence and hypothetically accelerate the object around your head with a true atomic light source at the required speed which would be close to C, and it will hold true. Spaces will form between each wave front of photons only when you do not track the object with your light detection device.

 

If this law works as I assume it could, it may describe what happens as an atom in a particle accelerator is measured as it flies along close to C. In one experiment they measured an atoms half-life at rest, and its life at close to C. According to their results it lived longer, and so they claimed it agrees with predicted results of special relativity. According to this law, the emittion of frequencies from the 'dissolving' particle could of be cast out over several distances making the particle act as though it is much longer than in fact it really is creating an idea that it lived longer. This is a far fetched assumption but, my point is if they used a device which targeted and tracked the particle it would respond like I said, 'at rest' and results could vary.