Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the other frame dilated.
My experiment sees the moving frame from the stationary lab/track frame and sees the clock on the train or the rotating form to be accelerated in time. So the observations up to this point match, except that SR says that you can't make a clock go faster like this. And if you reverse which frame the light comes from, this effects which frame must see time which way, or again do both which requires both results again. The point I guess is that this is either an experiment that makes mince meat of the speed of light or makes observations of clocks insanely paradoxical since they aren't receding at high speed so we cam observe the time dilation that is meant to be happening in real time so to speak. John On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it is > almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same minus > the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time > dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and > would still experience the SR style of time dilation... > > Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an > argument here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity > > The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the > clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the > train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to speed > up in these rotating frames or train frames*! > > But even IF this time acceleration of the moving clock can be massaged > into SR somehow, then we can complicate matters further by adding a second > light source on the rotating frame that reverses the relationship... > > BUT now the speed of light can not possibly be C for the rotating frame as > the clock would need to simultaneously be seen to tick faster and slower! > > And that is an easy conclusion to come to but I recommend not trying to > imagine this as it will do your head in :) > > John > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On second thought, I am not so sure about the "linear example". >> I will need to see it illustrated to be sure. >> >> harry >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The "linear example" you describe below. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <hveeder...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>> <berry.joh...@gmail.com>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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >
