0

# Speed of light revisited still again

Sat 11 Aug, 2012 10:37 am
Relativity leaves a dangling discomfort with “time at a distance.” There’s an unspoken assumption that if two distant bodies aren't in relative motion there’s no difference; that is, their clocks can be synchronized. But what if this isn’t the case as I had suggested in

http://able2know.org/topic/187876-1

Using conventional means we’ve synchronized a Mars clock with ours. Neglecting any relative motion, then, we assume when it’s noon here Marty’s clock is also reading 12:00 But what if Marty’s time instead depends on his distance. That is, at closest if 4 light minutes away at the time, the reading on his clock is completely indeterminate over the range 11:56 to 12:04

Then we’d be justified in asserting that the speed of light isn’t necessarily fixed at c but relative over the range 0.5c to infinitity, clearly bringing the phenomena of slowing clocks, shrinking dimensions, and increased mass clearly into line with with the intuitive

Thus the apparently mysterious changes taking place in a moving object are easily explained as our underestimating its speed. The traveler's rocket ship appears heavier simply because we’re underestimating his velocity; foreshortened because the light from both ends arrive at virtually the same instant; and his clock seems stopped because his trip is nearly instantaneous

Of course there are loose ends to my speculation. However if we believe Sib there are still a few such in Einstein

http://able2know.org/topic/195727-1
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,135 • Replies: 22
No top replies

Frank Apisa

2
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 10:53 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Of course there are loose ends to my speculation. However if we believe Sib there are still a few such in Einstein

Jesus H. Christ.

Did you just make a comparison between you and your theories and my friend Al Einstein and his?????

Here is a picture of me discussing those kinds of shenanigans with him. When I mentioned that some people do it, he just said, "Ahhh, **** 'em!"

dalehileman

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 11:56 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Did you just make a comparison between you and your theories and my friend Al Einstein and his?????
Blessed Zoroaster, Frank, not at all, I worship him. I merely hope to reawaken interest in “time at a distance” by suggesting an alternate view of apparent velocity
0 Replies

Brandon9000

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 02:40 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Relativity leaves a dangling discomfort with “time at a distance.”

No it doesn't.

dalehileman wrote:
There’s an unspoken assumption that if two distant bodies aren't in relative motion there’s no difference; that is, their clocks can be synchronized. But what if this isn’t the case as I had suggested in

http://able2know.org/topic/187876-1

Using conventional means we’ve synchronized a Mars clock with ours.

Unless the relative speeds are at least 50 or 60 million miles per hour (the speed of light is 670 million miles per hour), the difference would be trivial, using a reasonable definition of "trivial," which I can quantify, and Mars is not moving at any such speed compared to the Earth.

dalehileman wrote:
Neglecting any relative motion, then, we assume when it’s noon here Marty’s clock is also reading 12:00 But what if Marty’s time instead depends on his distance.

His time progression does not depend on his distance. Our observations of the rate at which time moves for him depends on his speed relative to us, not his distance from us.

dalehileman wrote:
That is, at closest if 4 light minutes away at the time, the reading on his clock is completely indeterminate over the range 11:56 to 12:04

Baloney. If he is moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light relative to us, we will observe his clocks as moving more slowly than ours and he will observe our clocks as moving more slowly than his (yes I mean that the way I said it). Distance has nothing to do with it.

dalehileman wrote:
Then we’d be justified in asserting that the speed of light isn’t necessarily fixed at c but relative over the range 0.5c to infinitity, clearly bringing the phenomena of slowing clocks, shrinking dimensions, and increased mass clearly into line with with the intuitive

Thus the apparently mysterious changes taking place in a moving object are easily explained as our underestimating its speed. The traveler's rocket ship appears heavier simply because we’re underestimating his velocity; foreshortened because the light from both ends arrive at virtually the same instant; and his clock seems stopped because his trip is nearly instantaneous

Of course there are loose ends to my speculation. However if we believe Sib there are still a few such in Einstein

http://able2know.org/topic/195727-1

So, you figure that thousands of physicists looking at relativity theory and doing thousands of experiments for a century made an elementary mistake? Why do you think that you can do physics? Why do you think that you can spot trivial mistakes in the work of five generations of physicists? It is completely clear that you have no education on the subject. How about if I write down here a high school physics problem for you to solve, something which I assure you I can easily do? Certainly someone who would challenge the world's physicists should be able to solve high school physics problems.
Frank Apisa

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 03:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon,

I acknowledge that I was having a bit of fun with Dale...busting chongs, so to speak.

But you took a hatchet to him (or her) and did it with the intent to do damage.

You oughta ease up a bit, Brandon. Blood pressure and all that!

I realize that flying off the handle is almost a requirement for some posters here in A2K...but just having a bit of fun is not the worst thing one can do.

Know what I mean?
dalehileman

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 03:52 pm
@Brandon9000,
dalehileman wrote:

Relativity leaves a dangling discomfort with “time at a distance.”

Quote:
No it doesn't.
Yes it does

dalehileman wrote:
.........if two distant bodies aren't in relative motion there’s no difference; that is, their clocks can be synchronized........Using conventional means we’ve synchronized a Mars clock with ours.

Quote:
Unless the relative speeds are at least 50 or 60 million miles per hour......the difference would be trivial, using a reasonable definition of "trivial,”....
Yes of course

dalehileman wrote:
........But what if Marty’s time instead depends on his distance.

Quote:
His time progression does not depend on his distance.
I wasn’t suggesting it does, but only the concept of simultaneity

dalehileman wrote:
That is, at closest if 4 light minutes away at the time, the reading on his clock is completely indeterminate over the range 11:56 to 12:04

Quote:
Baloney. If he is moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light relative to us, we will observe his clocks as moving more slowly than ours
Yes of course we would. However, as just discussed, we are ignoring any relative motion

Quote:
Quote:
and he will observe our clocks as moving more slowly than his (yes I mean that the way I said it).
Yes you’re absolutely right

Distance has nothing to do with it.
Of course it doesn’t. I cite distance not as a determinant of observed velocity but of comparative clock readings

dalehileman wrote:
Then we’d be justified in asserting that the speed of light isn’t necessarily fixed at c .......Thus the apparently mysterious changes taking place in a moving object are easily explained as our underestimating its speed............
Of course there are loose ends to my speculation. However if we believe Sib there are still a few such in Einstein

http://able2know.org/topic/195727-1

Quote:
So, you figure that thousands of physicists looking at relativity theory and doing thousands of experiments for a century made an elementary mistake?
By no means. I am only suggesting the common notion of simultaneity between two bodies at rest with respect to one another might be reexamined

Quote:
Why do you think that you can do physics?
Only the kind done in the bathroom

Quote:
Why do you think that you can spot trivial mistakes in the work of five generations of physicists?
They’re not mistaken at all. I’m merely proposing another way of looking at time at a distance

Quote:
It is completely clear that you have no education on the subject.
Admittedly not a lot though I’ve entertained it for quite a while

Quote:
How about if I write down here a high school physics problem for you to solve, something which I assure you I can easily do?
If you like

Quote:
Certainly someone who would challenge the world's physicists...
Still again though, Bran, I’m not challenging them at all
dalehileman

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 03:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Know what I mean?
Thanks Frank for defending me in my atrocious sopeculations

It seems that many drawn to the Internet forum are terribly angry at all times about nearly everything

In sum, the value c is based on a subliminal assumption regarding time at a distance. At noon we shine a light toward Mars and after it bounces off Marty’s mirror at 12:04 his time it returns at 12:08. So we calculate c based on the known distance

However, that assumes that when we energized the light Marty’s clock was also reading 12:00; but I’m giving you a slightly different way of looking at the difference. In a slight further simplification I’m asking you to imagine concentric circles around each and every observer in the Universe, spaced at time intervals proportional to the distance so that when it’s noon here we can consider it almost exactly 12:05 on Mars. Thus the beam arrived there almost instantaneously. You object that if its velocity is so much greater than c, why can’t we see the reflection the instant we turn it on

That’s easy. To us, the beam had spent eight minutes bouncing off Marty’s mirror. Now, to those not initiated in the ins and outs of relativity, the foregoing suggestion sounds absurd. However it’s not any moreso than the conventional Einsteinian view that gravitation causes a distant clock to run faster

To wit, let’s suppose it’s not a light beam but instead Arty in his a rocket ship making the voyage to Mars and upon arrival instead of bouncing off Marty's mirror Arty fires his retros, reversing his direction almost instantaneously. Assuming somehow the de-ac-celeration doesn't kill him, to him during that instant 8 minutes elapses back on Earth, ZIP, just like that. Any physicist will agree

So I’m simply asking you to adopt Arty’s point of view as a means to explore the intuitional validity of my approach to time-at-a-distance
Brandon9000

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 05:34 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon,

I acknowledge that I was having a bit of fun with Dale...busting chongs, so to speak.

But you took a hatchet to him (or her) and did it with the intent to do damage.

You oughta ease up a bit, Brandon. Blood pressure and all that!

I realize that flying off the handle is almost a requirement for some posters here in A2K...but just having a bit of fun is not the worst thing one can do.

Know what I mean?

Yes, Frank, I do, and it's nice to be speaking to you again. I hope that you are well. The thing is that I am a physicist, and the phenomenon of people with no training puporting to pontificate on physics is a pet peeve for most of us.
0 Replies

rosborne979

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 08:20 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Relativity leaves a dangling discomfort with “time at a distance.”

No it doesn't.

I agree with Brandon. I think all that is dangling here is various misunderstandings you have with Special Relativity.
dalehileman

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 08:55 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
various misunderstandings you have with Special Relativity
Like what for example
0 Replies

Brandon9000

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 08:59 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Know what I mean?
Thanks Frank for defending me in my atrocious sopeculations

It seems that many drawn to the Internet forum are terribly angry at all times about nearly everything

In sum, the value c is based on a subliminal assumption regarding time at a distance.

The measured value of c is based on the formula:

speed = distance / time

What do you mean by time at a distance?

dalehileman wrote:
At noon we shine a light toward Mars and after it bounces off Marty’s mirror at 12:04 his time it returns at 12:08. So we calculate c based on the known distance

However, that assumes that when we energized the light Marty’s clock was also reading 12:00; but I’m giving you a slightly different way of looking at the difference.

It makes no such assumption. It would be based on the reading of the Earthly clock when the light left and when it retured.

dalehileman wrote:
In a slight further simplification I’m asking you to imagine concentric circles around each and every observer in the Universe, spaced at time intervals proportional to the distance so that when it’s noon here we can consider it almost exactly 12:05 on Mars.

I don't follow your conclusion. How does me imagining concentric circles around each observer lead to a 5 minute disagreement between the two clocks?

dalehileman wrote:
Thus the beam arrived there almost instantaneously.

What? I don't see how you get this conclusion.

dalehileman wrote:
You object that if its velocity is so much greater than c, why can’t we see the reflection the instant we turn it on

That’s easy. To us, the beam had spent eight minutes bouncing off Marty’s mirror.

What? Please explain thus muddled mish-mash of statements.

dalehileman wrote:
Now, to those not initiated in the ins and outs of relativity, the foregoing suggestion sounds absurd. However it’s not any moreso than the conventional Einsteinian view that gravitation causes a distant clock to run faster

Yes it's much more absurd. Einstein used a series of sound deductions to reach his conclusion.

dalehileman wrote:
To wit, let’s suppose it’s not a light beam but instead Arty in his a rocket ship making the voyage to Mars and upon arrival instead of bouncing off Marty's mirror Arty fires his retros, reversing his direction almost instantaneously. Assuming somehow the de-ac-celeration doesn't kill him, to him during that instant 8 minutes elapses back on Earth, ZIP, just like that. Any physicist will agree

A high deceleration causes a larger elapsed time on Earth? How do you figure that?

dalehileman wrote:
So I’m simply asking you to adopt Arty’s point of view as a means to explore the intuitional validity of my approach to time-at-a-distance

Physics may be inspired by intuition from time to time, but results are not determined by intuition. They're determined by starting with known assumptions, setting up equations to describe the situation, and using math to derive conclusions.
Brandon9000

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 09:19 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

...
Quote:
How about if I write down here a high school physics problem for you to solve, something which I assure you I can easily do?
If you like
...

I like. A person who purports to derive an alternate formulation of relativity must surely be able to do a high school physics problem. Here it is:

Problem: A block slides down a 45 degree inclined plane in twice the time which it would take if there were no friction or negligible friction. What is the coefficient of kinetic friction between block and plane?

I worked this out in about half of a handwritten page. If you have some bizarre objection to this problem, I will give you one from some other area of physics.
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Sun 12 Aug, 2012 10:38 am
@Brandon9000,
The measured value of c is based on the formula:
Quote:
speed = distance / time
By the convention of course

Quote:
What do you mean by time at a distance?
For instance at this moment is Marty experiencing the same instant

dalehileman wrote:
...........
However, that assumes that when we energized the light Marty’s clock was also reading 12:00.......

Quote:
It makes no such assumption. It would be based on the reading of the Earthly clock when the light left and when it retured.
But suppose instead Marty’s clock was reading 12:05 at the instant we turned on the lamp. That would make light velocity many times c if not infinite

dalehileman wrote:
In a slight further simplification........so that when it’s noon here we can consider it almost exactly 12:05 on Mars.

Quote:
I don't follow your conclusion. How does me imagining concentric circles around each observer lead to a 5 minute disagreement between the two clocks?
Because in the circle intersecting Marty, if when we turned on our light his clock was reading 12:05 (Oops that should be 4 minutes) time-at-a-distance is resolved in favor of the intuition

dalehileman wrote:
Thus the beam arrived there almost instantaneously.

Quote:
What? I don't see how you get this conclusion.
Because at noon when we switched on our light it was 12:05 on Marty’s clock

dalehileman wrote:
You object that if its velocity is so much greater than c, why can’t we see the reflection the instant we turn it on

That’s easy. To us, the beam had spent eight minutes bouncing off Marty’s mirror.

Quote:
What? Please explain thus muddled mish-mash of statements.
To us the wavefront spent 8 minutes bouncing off Marty’s mirror just as to Arty 8 minutes elapsed back here the instant he pushed the button that fires his retro; though I remember having explained this

dalehileman wrote:
Now, to those not initiated in the ins and outs of relativity, the foregoing suggestion sounds absurd.......

Quote:
Yes it's much more absurd. Einstein used a series of sound deductions to reach his conclusion.
To some at first, Einstein ’s assertions seemed absurd. Hitler so reacted, calling relativity “Jewish science"

dalehileman wrote:
........Assuming somehow the de-ac-celeration doesn't kill him, to him during that instant 8 minutes elapses back on Earth, ZIP, just like that. Any physicist will agree

Quote:
A high deceleration causes a larger elapsed time on Earth? How do you figure that?
Conventional relativity teaches that the acceleration experienced by Arty when he fires his retro to him instantaneously causes 8 minutes to elapse on Earth

In brief, Einstein would agree that during his entire journey our clocks were stopped at 12:00 and during his entire return trip at 12:08

dalehileman wrote:
So I’m simply asking you to adopt Arty’s point of view as a means to explore the intuitional validity of my approach to time-at-a-distance

Quote:
Physics may be inspired by intuition from time to time, but results are not determined by intuition.
No they’re of course not determined. However may students agree that Einstein’s original insights were purely intuitional

That my speculation so neatly resolves the strange changes in a moving object, if not constituting proof might at least stimulate curiosity of the unbiased

Quote:
Problem: A block slides down a 45 degree inclined plane........
I worked this out in about half of a handwritten page. If you have some bizarre objection to this problem, I will give you one from some other area of physics.
No, thank you Brand, I’ll take your word for it
dalehileman

1
Sun 12 Aug, 2012 11:09 am
@dalehileman,
In sum of my former summation:

To Arty, by conventional relativity, in full agreement with Einstein:

The instant Arty leaves, Marty’s clock jumps to 12:05 and remains so throughout his brief outward voyage

The instant Arty fires his retro to initiate his return trip. our clock jumps ahead 10 minutes and remains at that reading throughout his return

Upon touchdown Marty's clock jumps ahead 4 minutes so as to agree with ours at 12:10

Thus I only ask you to temporarily adopt Arty’s view, providing my alternate if bizarre view of time-at-a-distance with a sort of intuitional validity. Are there, as I had asked, loose ends? Of course, so were a couple of Einstein’s conclusions without however invalidating his basic relativity

I apologize to the late participant for inadvertently slipping back and forth between 4 light minutes and 5. Now if only Admin will consider stretching out editing time beyond 15 minutes for us long-winded jabberkeys

And please, please, please, if nothing else, if at all feasible (because I realize how difficult to alter purchased software), make it easier to scroll in the editing window

Thanks all
0 Replies

izzythepush

1
Sun 12 Aug, 2012 01:35 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You're not fooling anyone Frank. It's obvious Einstein is talking to a waxwork.
dalehileman

1
Sun 12 Aug, 2012 02:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You oughta ease up a bit, Brandon. Blood pressure and all that!
Quite so Frank. While BP can be kept under control there are however risks. For instance relieving hypertension supposedly extends the life of one’s kidneys. Accordingly or years I took Lisinopril with hope of longevity until it was discovered that this medication also destroys one’s kidneys
Frank Apisa

1
Sun 12 Aug, 2012 03:53 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You're not fooling anyone Frank. It's obvious Einstein is talking to a waxwork.

Coises...foiled again!
Brandon9000

1
Mon 13 Aug, 2012 08:29 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
You oughta ease up a bit, Brandon. Blood pressure and all that!
Quite so Frank. While BP can be kept under control there are however risks. For instance relieving hypertension supposedly extends the life of one’s kidneys. Accordingly or years I took Lisinopril with hope of longevity until it was discovered that this medication also destroys one’s kidneys

It's fascinating that you're so good at providing alternative formulations of relativity without being able to provide an answer which can actually be checked to any physics problem, even on an elementary level. Perhaps mechanics just isn't your area, even though that's the topic you're trying to talk about. How about a high school level physics problem in another area - electricity, magnetism, thermodynamics, optics? I'll gladly provide a problem at a pre-college level in one of those areas.

By the way, the answer to the mechanics problem I posed above which you were clueless about is as follows:

a = acceleration
F = resultant force
f = frictional force
W = weight of the block
g = acceleration due to gravity
s = distance the block slides
t = time it takes for the block to slide down the plane
u = coefficient of kinetic friction

With friction first. Angles are in degrees:

a = F/m = (W sin 45 - f)/m
= (W sin 45 - u W cos 45)/m
= g (sin 45 - u cos 45) = g/sqrt(2) (1 - u)

Without friction:

a = g sin 45 = g/sqrt(2)
-------------------

s = 1/2 a t^2

t = sqrt(2s/a)

Time with friction = 2 x time without friction

sqrt[2s/(g/sqrt(2))(1 - u)] = 2 sqrt[2s/(g/sqrt(2))]

Factoring the square root on the left:

sqrt[1/(1 - u)] sqrt[2s/(g/sqrt(2))] = 2 sqrt[2s/(g/sqrt(2))]

sqrt[1/(1 - u)] = 2
1 - u = 1/4
u = 1 - 1/4 = 3/4
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:28 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
It's fascinating that you're so good at providing alternative formulations
I’m pleased Frank that you’re fascinated

Quote:
......without being able to provide an answer.......even on an elementary level.
Yes, no, mine's not a mathematical prop but a philosophical one

Quote:
Perhaps mechanics just isn't your area........
No it’s not, esp at 81 with incipient Alz’s

Quote:
........ electricity, magnetism, thermodynamics, optics?
Thank you Frank but no thank you

Quote:
By the way, the answer to the mechanics problem........as follows:
Thank your Frank and hoping someone benefits therefrom
Frank Apisa

1
Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:59 am
@dalehileman,

### Related Topics

Wow, that's sixty years.... - Question by dalehileman
The infinite Universe revisited - Discussion by dalehileman

1. Forums
2. » Speed of light revisited still again