how is the better explainer?? The one who invented the theory or the one who got from him and explain.. Do you know that during those time only 2 people could understand his theory.. How can i expect other books?? And when you said it is because of length contraction and all,i understood that you don't undertsand at all,because you contradicted his experiment and it is through his experiment he brought length contraction so when you say that it is because of length cantraction and not because of his experiment that what is the meaning?? You don't understand...
On the idea of time in physics-relativity
- Thread starter ash64449
- Start date
how is the better explainer?? The one who invented the theory or the one who got from him and explain.. Do you know that during those time only 2 people could understand his theory.. How can i expect other books?? And when you said it is because of length contraction and all,i understood that you don't undertsand at all,because you contradicted his experiment and it is through his experiment he brought length contraction so when you say that it is because of length cantraction and not because of his experiment that what is the meaning?? You don't understand...
look i don't take theory,if it is correct,then i will accept or i will not.. Einstein's theory is proved.... By experiment
do you know exactly how the conclusion is made that time for different observer is different from eistein's thought experiement??
Other books, written by physicist that actually now for sure about the properties of light will all say that an observer in motion will have two light beams traveling the same distance reach him at the same time as according to the M&M experiment.
I had a friend like you thought the same thing, I got him interested in it and we would talk about different things in theoretical physics. He then got the same book you did, and then I told him that it wasn't exactly right. That is only because I had already read other books about it that say something completely different. I have read books on just light itself, nothing else. It is a strange thing and an interesting topic if you know the right people.
But, sometimes straight from the horses mouth isn't the best way to go, and then sometimes it can be misleading. Einstein was a smart guy, but he wasn't right about everything all the way through. Just get a book about light, and see what it says. It will not agree with the thought experiment. Experiments have been done that test this. The only thing that is found to change from on object in motion is the wavelength of light. Not the speed or arrival times.
I know it could be hard to believe, but I speak the truth. Einstein use to always say, "God does not play dice with the universe!". But then they still came up with quantum theory and the uncertainty principle, he was actually completely wrong about quantum mechanics. They went and discovered it against what he thought anyways. He really didn't discover much after this point.
yes, i agree einstein was wrong at some other points but this theory is right.. Einstein's theory is proven.. Have you heard that they couldn't run gps if they didn't knew time dilation??!! How did einstein found out?? His thought experiment.. If einstein is right about that time dilation takes place,the that means thought experiment is right na???
I accept the current theory of relativity. I think it all started from the discovery that the speed of light is constant. Once that was discovered, then it was the first time that something could be seen to travel at a constant speed no matter what speed you are traveling. Something had to give and he figured that was space and time, velocity itself is distance divided by time. So then if the speed of light is not changing then the units that speed is measured with would then have to change. All it took to do that really is just assigning different time variables to different observers so that they both measure the same object to travel at the same speed. Then the mathmatics works out, and agrees with the experiment.
yes. Distance and time does change. This is absolutly right. But remember this: the thing changing it how me measure. For example, your 1 cm and mine is different!! That is what exactly happens.. Agree?
Some people wouldn't think so because of the relativity of simultaniety, but yes I do agree that actually changes. You should look over my derivation of the proper time, I don't really agree with the simple explaination that was brought out after Einstein, and I actually thought it needed a correction. I didn't put it in tex format, but I think it is too late for me to edit it. This wasn't Einsteins thought experiment, but was the one after his work was discovered. I changed it so the math works out to the correct Proper Time.
My derivation of the Proper Time.
ok... I agree.. But i do agree relativity with simultainity itself.. Ok. Let me watch your discussion now.. Our discussion is over... Right??
I guess. I don't really know what to think about relativity of simultainity when it assumes that the observer on the train doesn't recieve both light signals at the same time.
currently reading your discussion.. Very lengthy!!
The TE already agrees with the MMX results. You just keep dismissing the simple fact that the relativity of simultaneity is well-verified science. This is called crank denial.
This is why science is a religion. Saying Einstein was wrong about something would be like calling Jesus Christ a sinner. I think you should review the MMX in more detail. God knows you left a lot of it out already.
Look at the picture included. For an observer who is in the same inertial frame as the lights and is the same distance from each light, they will see the lights as flashing simultaneously. For the observer moving in a different inertial frame (the black dot) he will intersect the light sphere from the flashing light in the direction of travel first - so the moving observer will say the lights did not flash simultaneously. Both observers will however agree that the speed of light is the same in each frame.
View attachment 6159
Do you disagree? If so why.
Experiments on the properties of light. They found that an observer or object in motion will recieve two signals at the same time that are equal in distance to each other. The quantum mechanical properties of light are to complex to be accurately described in such a simple picture because of this.
That is the issue, the observer in the frame that is moving is not an equal distance from both lights by the time he intersects the first light sphere - you can see that can't you?
Don't try to make the problem more complicated. This simple drawing gives a clear description of reality.
What part of this do you disagree with?
Yes, I can see that, it is just that the picture assumes classical mechanics on the measured velocity of light.
It would be an accurate description of macroscopic objects, but classical mechanics does not apply to elementary particles. Then this classical description of differences in velocity would no longer be accurate.
So you believe that the stationary and the moving inertial frame would both see the flashes as occurring simultaneously? Really?
For the staionary frame that would mean that the light spheres expanded at the same rate (c of course).
However for the moving frame the only way that the light flashes could be seen as simultaneous would be if the light sphere in the direction of travel expanded less than c or the light sphere opposite the direction of travel expanded faster than c as seen from the stationary frame.
So how could this be, light only moves at c, right?
Waving your hands and saying the quantum mechanical properties of light ain't going to cut it.
Yes, I do. That is what I have read as being the interpretation of the MMX. The experiment is described in almost every book that explains SR. It assumes that an accelerating frame would measure the beams to hit simultaneously. The Earth is accelerating, and it did detect them to hit at the same time.
The problem is that like in the picture you linked that the spheres expanded at c relative to the observer at rest. But, I think that inorder for the observer in motion to measure the same speed of light, he would have to be the one drawing the spheres of light, so to speak. The light spheres of both frames could not agree with each other, so then you couldn't use the same spheres to describe what both frames observe.
The constant speed of light is a tricky thing to grasp. If you threw a ball you would measure it to travel a certain speed. A guy passing by in his car would measure it be a different speed relative to him. Light isn't the same as measuring the speed of a ball. The guy driving by in his car still measures it to travel at the same speed, the cars velocity doesn't change that.
So in the picture the dot is gaining on one light sphere faster than the other light sphere. This cannot happen so that he still measures the same speed of light. They would have different light spheres.
Then you do not understand the results of the experiment. The experiment shows that the speed of light is invariant in any inertial frame. That means we will always measure the speed of light as a c. One of the consequeces of this fact is that observers in differnent inertial frames will disagree on what is simultaneous.
That is not the hypothesis of the experiment nor the conclusions. The hypothesis of the experiment is that the velocity of the earth, NOT the acceleration of the earth, through the aether will result in the speed of light being measured at different values. The result of the experiment was that the speed of light was always measure to have the same value regardless of the movement or orientation of the inferometer.
There were not 2 lights there was only one. The beam was split to measure the speed by looking at the fringe pattern. The experiment did not test anything about simultaneity.
So you think that the stationary observe must see the light from the sources moving at different speeds! Great, you need to ask your self if it makes sense that everyone who has an education is wrong and you are right.
So what you think that the speed of light must slow down so that when the moving frame passes the light the observer will measure the velocity at c. That is so hideously wrong.:facepalm:
You appear to have a mind like a steel trap. By that I mean it snaps shut quite easily and is really hard to open back up. You should try to stop digging in your heels and think about what people are trying to tell you.
I assume your reply will convince me that this is a lost cause though...:shrug: