• Sections

Posted in the Physics Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#1 Oct 6, 2010
There are two light sources (frequency is the same). One is in a shuttle motion (approaches and recedes ; repeating ; relative to an observer). Another is at a standstill. Number of waves that this observer receives per given time (supposition ; per 100 shuttle motions) will be the same. In short, phenomenon time dilation is unthinkable. &#12298;P.S.&#12299; Version in which there is no effect caused by acceleration and deceleration is possible.

http://www.geocities.jp/nak233/eng.html
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#2 Nov 25, 2010
There are two observers who are in relative motion. Common view says that each observer observes time dilation of the other observer.

On the other hand, it's said that an atomic clock loaded into a jumbo jet plane showed time dilation. Above two (supposed ; both are true) will be different phenomenon. But none seems to point out it.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#3 Dec 5, 2010
[A Version of Jumbo Jet Experiment]
Near the north pole (spot N), there are some atom clocks. Now, half of these are moved to a spot near the equator (spot E). And after adequate time, the other half are moved also to the spot E. It will be more easy than "The Jumbo Jet Plane Experiment" (But i have never heard that according to latitude, time gains or loses).
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#4 Dec 15, 2010
SRT is talking about one observer and one light clock only (and is silent about two observers and two light clocks). On the other hand, SRT is talking that in every inertial frame, physical phenomenon is the same.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#5 Dec 18, 2010
There are two passenger cars. Each of these loads an observer, a light clock, and an atomic clock. Both are moving in a shuttle motion (exact opposite ; when one moves to the east, the other moves to the west). Motion of the both will be symmetrical.

[P.S.] There are many space ships. These are moving in the Brawnian motion like. Time dilation seems to be unimaginable.

Since: Jan 11

#6 Jan 18, 2011
The reason that this is not making sense to you is because you are neglecting reference frames. The jet ACCELERATES to a velocity putting it in a different reference frame. It then decelerates to the same reference frame that it started at - that is why the clocks do not agree.

GPS systems have to be corrected for time dialation or they will not work properly. The time dialation is due to the different gravitational field of the satellite (General Relativity) and the speed of the satellite (Special Relativity). This is a very robust and working theory that you are trying to refute - good luck!
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#7 Jan 23, 2011
Allow me to change the subject origin, please. The following is over and over my head. People (in Japan) are talking about GPS. But are silent about Obis or speed gun (In these, light speed varies. It's clear even to me a poor amateur).

Since: Jan 11

#8 Jan 24, 2011
nakayama wrote:
Allow me to change the subject origin, please. The following is over and over my head. People (in Japan) are talking about GPS. But are silent about Obis or speed gun (In these, light speed varies. It's clear even to me a poor amateur).
What do you mean by a speed gun? Is that a radar gun that measures the speed of an object?
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#9 Jan 25, 2011
Sorry origin for conclusive tone of this post. But all is certain, unquestionable (and simple). So, allow me to show conclusion only (about some grounds [it's firm also], see my web-site please).

If light speed were constant, Orbis don't act. Below is "all" of Orbis.[P.S.] Light speed = wavelength x frequency. It stands up on emitted light and reflected light each.
[In the air ; Light follows the frame of the air]
* At inertial frame of Orbis (windless)
&#12288;Light speed is the same. Wavelength and frequency each is different.
* At inertial frame of moving car (in an uniform motion)
&#12288;Frequency is the same. Light speed and wavelength each is different.
[In the outer space ; Light follows the emission theory]
* At inertial frame of moving object (in an uniform motion)
&#12288;Light speed is different.
* At inertial frame of Orbis
&#12288;Light speed is different.

[P.S.] In the air, light follows the frame of the air. So the result of M-M experiment is only natural.

Since: Jan 11

#10 Jan 25, 2011
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. What is Orbis? What is &#12288?

But in the M-M experiments the light traveled through approximately 93,000,000 miles of vacuum and only about 20 miles of atmosphere.

It is rather arrogant to say your beliefs are uquestionable considering that special relativity has been experimentally proven time and time again.

Hopefully we can overcome the language barrier so I could at least understand your objections...
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#11 Jan 28, 2011
Principle of Orbis (speed trap ? red light camera ?) is the same as that of speed gun (uses laser light or micro wave). It's written, into Japan, Orbis was imported from "The Boeing Company" in 1980 era (it seems to be used also in France or Germany now).

Allow me to say, i'm talking about not "relativity" but "constancy of light speed" only. The latter is wrong. There is beyond dispute !! And "all" is shown in Orbis (shown enough in previous post ; sorry, "double space" are garbled). If you don't accept "Orbis", sorry, i have no idea.

[P.S.] Common explanation on M-M experiment is also terribly wrong. Einstein will be aware of it. So he says he didn't know M-M experiment, i believe. As to this, please see Pauli's passage and French's passage. Both are quoted (in original text) in my web-site.

Since: Jan 11

#12 Jan 28, 2011
nakayama wrote:
Principle of Orbis (speed trap ? red light camera ?) is the same as that of speed gun (uses laser light or micro wave). It's written, into Japan, Orbis was imported from "The Boeing Company" in 1980 era (it seems to be used also in France or Germany now).
Allow me to say, i'm talking about not "relativity" but "constancy of light speed" only. The latter is wrong. There is beyond dispute !! And "all" is shown in Orbis (shown enough in previous post ; sorry, "double space" are garbled). If you don't accept "Orbis", sorry, i have no idea.
The problem appears to be that you do not understand how a speed gun works. The gun emits a constant frequency of light waves. The light waves reflect off a moving object and return to the gun. If the object is moving away then the frequency will decrease if the object is moving towards the gun the frequency will increase. Why you think this means that the speed of light is not constant is beyond me.

Every single legit experiment ever carried out has shown that the speed of light is a constant. Saying the speed of light isn't constant does not make it true. Where is your evidence - it certainly is not your speed gun example!

I took a quick look at your website and the problem you are having understanding this is indeed frequency.

The energy of a photon is E = h*f = h*c/[wave length] so c = f*[wave length]. From this you seem to be saying that if you are traveling towards a light source because the frequency changes and the energy of the photon does not change then the speed of the light must change. But that is wrong! The energy does change! If you are traveling at 99.9999% the speed of light towards a source of visible light, you will measure the speed of light from the source at c. However the frequency will be very short which means that the light will have more energy. In fact that light could have the energy of gamma rays if you are going fast enough. This frequency change is one of the methods that is used to determine the motion of galaxies and stars in the universe.

You are simply mistaken on your notion of light speed. The several paragraphs I read on your website were just different instances of you not understanding the relationship between frequency, speed and energy of light.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#13 Jan 31, 2011
i am sorry to worry you because of my bad explanation. But i say again, all is certainly in radar trap example.

To a driver (car is approaching toward radar trap), frequency of coming waves and reflected waves is the same !!!! So, speed of two waves must be different to him (light speed = frequency x wavelength).

All are in above formula. Not energy but wavelength. Even to me, there is no room to mistake.[P.S.] But errors of common view are double and triple (even in this example). These seem to be barriers to you.

Since: Jan 11

#14 Jan 31, 2011
nakayama wrote:
.
To a driver (car is approaching toward radar trap), frequency of coming waves and reflected waves is the same !!!! So, speed of two waves must be different to him (light speed = frequency x wavelength).
I believe that you correct that to the driver the incoming frequency and the reflected frequency will be the same. But why do you think that this means the speed of the wave changes?

The incident frequency will be higher as measured by the drive than emitted by the radar gun. The reflected frequency will be identical to the incident frequency. The detector at the radar gun will measure the higher frequency and that will then be translated into a velocity of the driver. The speed of the EM radiation will remain constant.

Since: Jan 11

#15 Jan 31, 2011
Look at this example. I am sure you are familiar with the change in pitch of a train whistle as it passes you. This is of course actually a change in the frequency of the sound waves.

We will use a train as a sound gun. Assume there is a train and a huge wall mounted on a rail car 500 m in front of the train.

The train blasts it's whistle and if the wall is stationary the following will occur: The pitch of the whistle will be the same for the train, the wall and the echo will return at the same pitch. And finally the speed of the sound wave will be constant.

Now the train blasts it's whistle, but this time the wall is moving towards the train. The following will be heard. The train will intially hear the whistle at the same pitch as before. An observer on the moving wall will hear a higher pitch (frequency) than the train. What is more the echo will return to the train with the higher pitch (frequency). Finally the speed of the sound wave does not change because it's speed is only a function of the density of the air.

I must caution about using sound waves to explain light waves as there are major differences as shown with special relativity but it can be instructive in limited cases.
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#16 Feb 2, 2011
In your train example, i ask, how about the speed of two waves relative to the moving wall ?

i repeat, in the air, the air is the frame of propagation of sound and light (as Pauli and French write). Common view is quite wrong. Above train example stands up on light waves also. No problem.

Shown below is excerpt from my web-site.
1) To a driver, frequency of coming waves and reflected waves is the same.
2) So, if the speed of waves (relative to the car) is the same, wavelength is the same also (see the formula).
3) However, wavelength is an "invariant" (value is the same to every moving observer).
4) So, to a policeman, if the speed of two waves is the same, Doppler effect doesn't occur (because wavelength is the same. so frequency also, inevitably ; see the formula).
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#17 Feb 9, 2011
-Correction-
Relativity says, length is not invariant (therefore wavelength is not invariant also). So, above 3) must be corrected as follows.

3) So, number of waves that exists per optional length (of the beam) is the same (and it's true to every moving observer).

Thank you origin !
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#18 Sep 9, 2012
Allow me to post a simple question.

Time dilation in a gravitational field is said to not be appearance. According to the equivalence principle, it will be the same as an accelerated frame. But, imagine a rotating disk. Rotational speed (number of rotations) at every point of the disk will be the same. Where is time dilation ?
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#19 Jan 14, 2013
This is a new-type light clock. A windmill is rotating. At the edge and at a point close to the center of a blade, light sources are fixed and flash once per 100 rotations of the windmill. Time dilation (SR asserts) will not be observable.

-P.S.- How about a sensor that is rotating relatively (the windmill does not rotate)?
nakayama

Yokohama, Japan

#20 Jan 16, 2014
Relative motion is said to cause time dilation. Now, at the north pole and at the equator, there are atomic clocks. How is time dilation found ?

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.