It wasn't. The light inside the moving clock was traveling at the same speed as the light inside the stationary clock. The moving clock records fewer ticks because the distance that the light has to travel is greater in that clock, compared to the stationary clock. This is not speculation, it is a very standard way of teaching relativity. Here is the exact same idea on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_velocity_time_dilation Please watch the video again, on full screen so that you can look closely for the red dashed line showing the light's path. Here is a screenshot that I made and edited so you can see it better: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, that's not right. I believe what Einstein proved is that the photon in the accelerating elevator reaches the opposite wall at exactly the same time as in the stationary model. It just does so at a different spots, which can be measured and compared to the exact distance the elevator has moved in the opposite direction. This is the exact same model as Einstein's elevator, except the motion is not vertical but horizontal and the light is fired vertically instead of horizontally. The equation remains in balance throughout. And synchronicity remains preserved. If "Up, down" remains synchronized, "c" remains constant. The photon always hits the opposite wall at the same time, regardless if the wall is moving or no. It does not matter, as long as the distance between the two walls remains the same, light will follow its "shortest path", always. The model as shown is impossible. It shows "c" at two different rates, which is a false representation of an unsynchronized demonstration of reality. If two boxes have a synchronized clock when stationary, there is no reason to assume that synchronicity gets broken when one box moves horizontally in relation to the other stationary box. The count : 'Up, down,Up, down,Up, down should remain synchronized the same for both boxes, irrespective of POV or movement. The distance that the photon travels is always the direct shortest way to the opposite wall . It makes no difference how much the wall moves in a horizontal trajectory. The distance between the two walls does not change, not for Box A, nor for Box B. In the video the photon in the moving box shows a loss of synchronicity. I think what's overlooked here is that the photon is not fired at a diagonal angle. It is fired in a 90 degree angle from the emitter straight up or straight down and it always covers the shortest space between the two walls at the same time, in synchronicity with the stationary clock. There is no distance to an objective target, there is only a uniform distance of space between walls. To the observer in the elevator the path appears longer, but that's the illusionary, the as he calls it; "phantasmagical" phenomenon of Relativity. Actually I see the model more as looking a series of [|]_[|]_ [|]_ [|]_ [|] instead of a emergent phenomenon of relativity [/][\][/][\][/][\]
W4u's reply: So, W4u, how come more muons arrive at the earth's surface than would be expected from their lifetime in the lab, irrespective of whether anyone is watching?
How can you prove this if you're not measuring? Who or what did the counting? "Observing" is not the same as "someone watching". Any form of measurement is "observing" from a subjective FoR. If you're not measuring how can you make statements of fact ? Are you telling me that muons are not subject to wave function collapse? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
Your saying only when life existed did muons in greater numbers start to reach the surface of the earth. Before that, there were no observers or measurers. And, since there were no observers, there were no muons.
Write4U; "Relativity is not a physical phenomeon, it is a mathematical phenomenon." exchemist; "This is wrong. Relativity is nothing to do with human perception." [It's both. SR is about light, mass, motion, and the laws that regulate the behavior of the universe. It's also about human perception, with observer participation an essential element. The verification tool for science is measurement. That's where the math is required.]
All the above goes to show is that you do not understand what c being constant regardless of reference frame means. I will illustrate what is meant by this; assume you have A, B and C. Each has there own light source and have a relative motion with respect to each other. Their path are such that that all three meet at the same point. When this happens each one will emit a flash of light from their light source. If we consider events from the reference frame B is stationary with respect to, you get this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The expanding ring of dots represents the light flashes. All three exactly overlap, as light travels at c regardless of the motion of the source. The ring expands outward at c, maintaining a constant distance from B, while A and C move on relative to the center of the expanding flash. Now if we consider this same scenario from the reference frame which in which C is considered at rest: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The three flashes again overlap, but now expand outward at c from C , with C staying at the center of the expanding flash. A and B move relative to the center of the flash. Lastly, we consider the frame in which A is at rest. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The flashes expand outward at c from A. B and C move relative to the center of the expanding flash. Now the really important thing to keep in mind about these three examples is that do not represent three different cases where A B or C is considered in a state of absolute rest depending on which example you are looking at, but instead is the exact same scenario in all three cases, and all we did was switch which reference we were examining it from. This is what is meant by light travels at c according to all reference frames. It mean "as measured relative to that frame as measured from that frame." This concept is at the very heart of Relativity. Earlier you said that you understood Relativity. But if you don't grasp this fundamental concept, you can't understand Relativity.
What makes you think I don't understand all this. Show me what you think I think. I'll let you know if what you think I think is what I think and I'll be very honest. Question: Do any of these objects move at "c"? It seems to me that the flash of light always behaves the same regardless of the movement of A, B, or C. That is because the light always moves @ "c". The "c" part of these illustrations remains "constant" , no?
Good old Write4U: "Yes repeat no, but, anyway, what about this?" We'll never get out of the maze of half-understood ballocks, irrelevance, subject-changing and stubborn refusal to admit error. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My position is that time is an emergent relatively variable measurement of duration, whereas "c" is a constant. You position is that time is a constant and "c" is the variable quantity. I disagree with that perspective. What!? That is a blatantly dishonest statement. I am not the one changing the goal posts or presenting "what about this". I have posted a single illustration (post #32) and I stand by that. All other illustrations of thought experiments by others do not represent the thought experiment as posited by Einstein. You are not arguing with me. You're calling Einstein wrong!
Yeah yeah, I know, I know......and black is white, and I'm a teapot.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can you prove that or are you just resorting to ad hominem for lack of persuasive argument? You know, the cheap way out.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, you are a person. You're acting like a teapot. There is this entire argument in a nutshell. You keep spouting things that aren't true, because you keep trying to pour words in my mouth.
My bold above. If it is not a '' physical phenomeon'' then your saying the number of muons reaching the earth's surface will not change, because according to you it is only a ''mathematical phenomenon''.
Question; Does time stand still for a photon travelling @ "c" ? If so that answers the age old question of "entanglement", no? Entangled particles always remain synchronized because when traveling @ "c" time between them stands still (= 0), from all frames of reference ?
