I very much appreciate your saying so Harry! You give me faith in humans!
Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like > solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR. > You should illustrate that as well. > harry > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png >> >> BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a >> claim of General Relativity that acceleration does this. >> Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means. >> >> But the argument would still stand since the path light takes would seem >> longer. >> The effect would be diminished. >> >> The effects of mutual time dilation SR style between the opposite sides >> of the rotating frame and all parts of the rotating frame with the lab >> frame make me choose to ignore that component for now, but any attempt to >> reconcile this experiment with SR time dilation will be a mess and utterly >> contradictory as everything should be effected equally and yet >> paradoxically. >> >> If that does not help, then the linear example is: >> Put sensors on opposite train windows, one clock in the train frame, one >> on the ground frame. >> Use an optical or brush contact method to send signals to the ground >> frame clock. >> Optionally add a set of earth frame sensors as close to the others making >> sure they both see the same light at the same time. >> Light is sent from the earth frame directly across taking the shortest >> route, but it looks indirect to the train. >> >> How can both measure C for the light? >> Or what if you replace it with an electron at near .999 C, what would be >> expected? >> >> Obviously assume a vacuum is present. >> >> Thanks for taking a look, >> John >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The spatial relationships between the discs and clocks is not clear. >>> Can you draw a diagram of the experiment? >>> >>> harry >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:34 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> For brevity, I will explain it in sentence. and the possible results in >>>> a few more, But the longer form solves questions and objections: >>>> >>>> Take 2 light sensors separated at an appropriate distance, the censors >>>> are shaped like CD and are transparent, designated A and B, rotate them at >>>> high enough velocity so that the time dilation associated with General >>>> Relativity (GR) applying (gravitational equivalence time dilation) can be >>>> measured, and let sensor A send a signal to both clocks, and sensor B also >>>> sends a signal to both clocks. >>>> If we expect light to be seen as C (assuming a vacuum) by both clocks >>>> we have a problem since there are only 2 sensors, not 2 sets of sensors and >>>> one close is slow. >>>> >>>> If light is somehow seems to be moving less than C by the non time >>>> dilated clock, then if additional non-rotating sensors A2 and B2 are placed >>>> right next to sensors A and B less than a mm apart then we would then >>>> expect to find these sensors A2 and B2 to give the right answer to our >>>> normal clock to get the expected velocity? >>>> >>>> But then censors B and B2 which are almost in the same exact place >>>> would not see the photon at the same time, the second sensor B2 would see >>>> it first, and later the slightly closer censor would! >>>> >>>> And it gets worse, from the rotating sensors and rotating clocks view >>>> light is not taking the most direct path between the 2 censors, it is on an >>>> angle, so the light is moving further in the rotated (slow clock) frame and >>>> doing it in less time than the shorter distance would be expected to take >>>> provided you assume that the previous example of B2 detecting something >>>> before the ever so slightly closer B censor is not possible. >>>> >>>> About the only half way sensible way out of these impossibilities is to >>>> assume that all the space between any 2 co-moving objects that could be >>>> measuring light also gets time dilated?? And that is the most sensible but >>>> still obviously wrong conclusion I can find. >>>> >>>> If you object that the time dilation means finding light the be faster >>>> than C is fine, then read on, but note that even without time dilation the >>>> light would still exceed C from taking a longer path.. >>>> >>>> >>> <snip> >>> >> >> >
