Light Speed: Fixed... or Relative? Exploring Einstein's Relativity

ImaFungi
So say we are in a dark room completely dark standing in the exact middle of a huge room (guess it doesnt matter), And I have a flashlight in my right hand, and I turn it on facing my left hand, you are saying my brain or any detector would detect the shadow of my hand on the wall before any light is detect there or around it? or my eye/brain detects the shadow hand before the light around it?

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. This isn't anything like what anybody said.

The animation in the video you posted showing representations of photons spraying the moon's surface was pretty good; if you take any two photons, each one arrives at the moon at the speed of light. But the distance between photon impacts divided by the time can be greater than c, and in the example shown in the video, it is greater than c, and no law or theory in physics prevents this. Behind those impacts is the absence of light so the "shadow" moves at the same speed.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Yes, I'm hypothesizing typos, before hypothesizing backward time travel like dragonridr's students. Since it's not obvious to me what the typo is I won't speculate, it's just that in my experience typos are far more likely to be observed than backward time travel. If they achieved such time travel, that would be the bigger news than breaking the speed of light, to me.

Arbitrageur

ImaFungi
So say we are in a dark room completely dark standing in the exact middle of a huge room (guess it doesnt matter), And I have a flashlight in my right hand, and I turn it on facing my left hand, you are saying my brain or any detector would detect the shadow of my hand on the wall before any light is detect there or around it? or my eye/brain detects the shadow hand before the light around it?

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. This isn't anything like what anybody said.

The animation in the video you posted showing representations of photons spraying the moon's surface was pretty good; if you take any two photons, each one arrives at the moon at the speed of light. But the distance between photon impacts divided by the time can be greater than c, and in the example shown in the video, it is greater than c, and no law or theory in physics prevents this. Behind those impacts is the absence of light so the "shadow" moves at the same speed.

reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Yes, I'm hypothesizing typos, before hypothesizing backward time travel like dragonridr's students. Since it's not obvious to me what the typo is I won't speculate, it's just that in my experience typos are far more likely to be observed than backward time travel. If they achieved such time travel, that would be the bigger news than breaking the speed of light, to me.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

When i read it i think they didnt put the total path of the light beam obviously longer then 62 nano seconds.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Since you gave me some material to read, it will take me time to reply.

I do not doubt the accuracy of atomic clocks for a fixed location. But these are not useful on a ship.

Keeping time is a very important subject. I am a student of Veda which has this topic covered. Vedic education includes one full subject which is devoted to keeping time.

Before I was a student of Veda, I was a student and then practitioner of western science. I do not claim to understand everything in western science but enough to talk about it.

I know one thing for certain - fundamentals never change. You can build a very good device with precision and all, but the uncertainty factor never disappears.

Phage
reply to post by GargIndia

 

You don't need three planets. You just need trigonometry and logic.

www.newscientist.com...

www.physicsforums.com...

physics.stackexchange.com...

The experiment involving the laser pointer sweeping the line between two planets will not work at all the way this theoretical experiment describes.

Now my problem is I cannot prove it to you, just like you cannot prove your experiment to me, as neither have the equipment to prove this.

---------------------------------

Let us take the moon example, as it is simpler.

Here the first problem is observer. Observer is usually a point in space. So let us assume we have an observer at a specific place on moon - either a human or a machine.

So when you point your laser at this observer, the light will reach the observer exactly at the speed of light.

When you move your pointer, the observer can no longer observe the laser's light. So there is no way to find the speed of light that reaches some point on the moon. That information is lost so has no meaning to the experiment.

One always use examples of experiments that can be performed, even theoretically. Your example experiment cannot be performed.

Arbitrageur

ImaFungi
So say we are in a dark room completely dark standing in the exact middle of a huge room (guess it doesnt matter), And I have a flashlight in my right hand, and I turn it on facing my left hand, you are saying my brain or any detector would detect the shadow of my hand on the wall before any light is detect there or around it? or my eye/brain detects the shadow hand before the light around it?

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. This isn't anything like what anybody said.

The animation in the video you posted showing representations of photons spraying the moon's surface was pretty good; if you take any two photons, each one arrives at the moon at the speed of light. But the distance between photon impacts divided by the time can be greater than c, and in the example shown in the video, it is greater than c, and no law or theory in physics prevents this. Behind those impacts is the absence of light so the "shadow" moves at the same speed.

reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Yes, I'm hypothesizing typos, before hypothesizing backward time travel like dragonridr's students. Since it's not obvious to me what the typo is I won't speculate, it's just that in my experience typos are far more likely to be observed than backward time travel. If they achieved such time travel, that would be the bigger news than breaking the speed of light, to me.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Actually it is quite simple.

Any experiment described should be able to be built. There is no point in a theoretical experiment that can never be built. There is no point discussing such scenarios.

Science is - as I repeat again - is about observation and measurement. If you cannot measure something, do not talk about it.

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Since you gave me some material to read, it will take me time to reply.

That's much better than posting a reply without reading the materials, so take your time.

GargIndia
Any experiment described should be able to be built. There is no point in a theoretical experiment that can never be built. There is no point discussing such scenarios.

Two situations were discussed in what you replied to. One experiment has been built, and the other could be measured, so I'm not sure why you're saying this.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Can you refresh my memory - which experiment has been built & what has been measured?

RocksFromSpace
If I had a car that was going the speed of light and I turned on the headlights would they do anything???

You have asked the most intelligent question anybody has asked on ATS?

The light emission goes in all directions from the source. It is typically focussed in one direction in a head light.

If you are in space, you cannot see your light beam even if you are stationary, because there are no air atoms that diffuse light. So you will not see your headlight no matter what your speed.

If an object is lit by your headlight, you will see emissions from that object. If you are moving at speed of light, your headlight will be useless, and you will see only emissions from that object from light coming from sources other than your headlight.

I hope the answer helps in your understanding.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


OK. I have read the posted article.

I would of course need some more information to understand the device fully, but I have understood the functioning principles.

It would help if you can post the waveform (the raw waveform) generated by the device and a block diagram.

Your science tries to understand the physical phenomenon in your own way. You build devices according to your own understanding.

To me, your device is full of delicate electronics as well as parts which are very susceptible to strong EM fields. So its reading can change rather unexpectedly when you change location.

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

OK. I have read the posted article.

I would of course need some more information to understand the device fully, but I have understood the functioning principles.

It would help if you can post the waveform (the raw waveform) generated by the device and a block diagram.

Here's an article with a generic simple block diagram for optical clocks in general:

www.rp-photonics.com...

It lists 11 references, where #8 is the source I posted previously, so there are 10 other references regarding optical clocks but not all use Al, in fact the article mentions some uncertainty about which type of optical clock might be the most advantageous.

it is to be expected that in the not too far future the cesium clock as the fundamental timing reference will be replaced with an optical clock, although it is so far not clear which type of optical clock would be used as such a standard.

Anyway there are 10 more sources with additional information about optical clocks listed in that link, and if you can't find what you need in those you might try asking the authors.

I'm not sure where you're going with the EM field idea though. Are you suggesting that some kind of EM field in the lab has a higher or lower strength at an elevation of 1 meter higher, and do you have a source in mind for this EM field?

GargIndia
Can you refresh my memory - which experiment has been built & what has been measured?

We've sent photons to the moon in the Apollo reflector experiments, so all we'd need to do to measure the time and distance between photon impacts is to install separate detectors and a simple timing circuit, so photons from Earth impacting the moon are measurable, but that experiment hasn't been set up on the moon yet. It's kind of like predicting that replacing a bald tire with a new tire will allow you to drive a car further without a blowout. It's practically a tautology so there's not much point in even conducting such an experiment, when there's really no question about what the result will be.

The other result where the experiment has already been done, we haven't found the paper. That's the one where dragonridr posted a summary of the paper earlier in the thread about light traveling faster than c through cesium, and Phage posted something about it possibly being a phase/group velocity type thing.

GargIndia

Science is - as I repeat again - is about observation and measurement. If you cannot measure something, do not talk about it.

what are you saying ?? Einstein's theory is based on NO EXPERIMENT, just thinking. He called it the Gedankenexperiment, there is no measurement, no direct measurements at all.

next...
We know the speed of light here on Earth and only Earth, just because relativity is based on constant speed of light does not mean we have measured it everywhere in the Universe.

in other words...
I can postulate there is an edge on the universe made of chocolate, if I find enough followers who will tell exactly what I'm saying, "the edge of the Universe is made of chocolate", it will become MS science, simple as that !!

I know this statement about chocolate is stupid, sure... But I really like to remind you how today's science works.
He generalizes everything a lot, but the point he is making is like it is

KrzYma
what are you saying ?? Einstein's theory is based on NO EXPERIMENT, just thinking. He called it the Gedankenexperiment, there is no measurement, no direct measurements at all.

I wouldn't go that far. He knew about the precession of Mercury and that his theory could explain that observation which previous theory didn't explain. Moreover he knew his idea needed measurements and observations to be taken seriously which is why he solicited help from astronomers to make eclipse measurements to test his theory. It wasn't until after measurements confirmed his theory that Einstein became famous.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It appears you must have done the opposite of reading my reply.

The example in the room was not about light moving faster then light on the moon. It was about you and/or someone claimed shadows move faster then light, so I was trying to discuss that.

The experiment, can it not be .2 divided by 64?

Yes I think I understand the moon light thing, its a cascade affect of sorts.

Arbitrageur

KrzYma
what are you saying ?? Einstein's theory is based on NO EXPERIMENT, just thinking. He called it the Gedankenexperiment, there is no measurement, no direct measurements at all.

I wouldn't go that far. He knew about the precession of Mercury and that his theory could explain that observation which previous theory didn't explain. Moreover he knew his idea needed measurements and observations to be taken seriously which is why he solicited help from astronomers to make eclipse measurements to test his theory. It wasn't until after measurements confirmed his theory that Einstein became famous.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

sure, but there are also measurements that are contradict to relativity and still...
well I have told this more than once here on ATS Relativity is wrong !

here just one example

The deflection of gamma-rays in Earth's gravitational field is tested in laser Compton scattering at high energy accelerators. Within a formalism connecting the bending angle to the photon's momentum it follows that detected gamma-ray spectra are inconsistent with a deflection magnitude of 2.78 nrad, predicted by Einstein's gravity theory. Moreover, preliminary results for 13-28 GeV photons from two different laboratories show opposite - away from the Earth - deflection, amounting to 33.8-0.8 prad. I conclude that general relativity, which describes gravity at low energies precisely, break down at high energies.

accelerator contradicts relativity

please watch this?


BTW, do you guys know the site conspiracy of light
it's a lot of experiments and other stuff.

KrzYma
sure, but there are also measurements that are contradict to relativity and still...
well I have told this more than once here on ATS Relativity is wrong !

here just one example

accelerator contradicts relativity

But are they peer-reviewed? I'm not seeing where that paper has been peer reviewed, has it?

I watched the beginning of the video and the guy doesn't understand relativity. It is possible for observer A to see the clock in frame B run slower, and for the observer in frame B to see the clock in frame A run slower. He implies this is impossible, but it's not.

Also, the twin paradox is only a paradox for people who don't understand relativity, like the guy in that video. It's not really a paradox and there are many misconceptions about it as described here:

How does relativity theory resolve the Twin Paradox?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


so you didn't watched the full video ?

peer reviewed ? or you mean corrected to relativity by some BIGGER scientist ??

E=mc2 is not Einstein's discovery, and due to the fact that MS scientists claim it is, it's a lie!
If one is a lie, how do you can even believe the rest ??

BTW: observation of the clocks shows time difference, not the clocks themselves, sure, due to the increasing separation distance, I wrote some thoughts on this www.abovetopsecret.com...

I admit, this guy in this vid go a little crazy on the end of his video, talking God and other nonsense, however, his examples why relativity is a fraud stands.


just in case you have some time, here some interesting vid

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

It appears you must have done the opposite of reading my reply.

The example in the room was not about light moving faster then light on the moon. It was about you and/or someone claimed shadows move faster then light, so I was trying to discuss that.

The experiment, can it not be .2 divided by 64?

Yes I think I understand the moon light thing, its a cascade affect of sorts.

Shadowscan do the same exact thing they can move faster than the object its just geometry. For example a planes shadow covers a much greater distance than the actual plane does. If a plane goes over a mountain the plane can cover twice the distance in the same time period. Or if we were between the sun and the moon we could cause our shadow to streak across the moon faster than light.

reply to post by KrzYma


Your video is attacking relativity from an experiment done in 1919. Yes even i think the information was weak on the eclipse. But since then there has been multiple experiments proving relativity. So arguing one experiment disproves all the others is stupid.If this were 1919 the video may have a point and further experiments would have been needed. And he lies to you right at the beginning Einstein tells you an object in motion is different than an object at rest. The rocket in motion doesn't think the earth is moving away thats convoluted logic.All relativity is concerned with is the speed the observer is moving relative to another.So to sum it up whoever created the video arguing against relativity showed they dont even have a basic understanding of its principles.In fact he arguing two different theories trying to group them together. Einstein had two theories general relativity and special relativity.Both cover different aspects yet in the video he groups them together in an attempt to mislead people.

dragonridr
reply to post by KrzYma

 

Your video is attacking relativity from an experiment done in 1919. Yes even i think the information was weak on the eclipse. But since then there has been multiple experiments proving relativity. So arguing one experiment disproves all the others is stupid.

Yes the video is full of arguments based on ancient data. The same can be said with the flying clocks experiment and the claim about that:


So Kelly says clocks 100 times more accurate would be needed. Personally I think the accuracy problems may have had more to do with accurately profiling the ascent/descent profiles etc than the clock accuracy but sure there were accuracy problems. If you've been paying any attention in this thread, I've been discussing clocks we have now which are over a thousand times more accurate, and we are getting the same results with them.

Hafele–Keating experiment

A reenactment of the original experiment by the NPL took place in 1996 on the 25th anniversary of the original experiment, using more precise atomic clocks during a flight from London to Washington, D.C. and back again. The results were verified to a higher degree of accuracy. A time gain of 39 ± 2 ns was observed, compared to a relativistic prediction of 39.8 ns. In June 2010, NPL again repeated the experiment, this time around the globe (London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hongkong - London). The predicted value was 246 ± 3 ns, the measured value 230 ± 20 ns.

Because the Hafele–Keating experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods, and have been shown to be in error.

Videos are inefficient methods of communication. I can skim the transcript of a 10 minute video in less than 1 minute, but without the transcript the videos are painfully slow and inefficient to watch, especially when they are filled with claims I've already heard and already know the resolution to like this flying clocks claim, so yeah I only watched the first half and heard a lot of arguments, none of which convinced me of anything but the author's own ignorance.

I have noticed that some questions are being avoided and the fundamental question is not answered.

So, taking two observer positions each on a photon of light traveling toward each other.

Are they not seeing the other photon traveling at twice the speed of light.

I remember in high school going over the math of why the sound barrier could never be broken. Our science teacher was demonstrating how science can be manipulated.

There were a great many eminent scientists who held this view and yet, now, we know that the sound barrier is not a barrier.

P