Physics Help Forum unknown vector of a closed space

 Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

Jul 25th 2019, 05:18 AM   #11
Member

Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
 Originally Posted by HallsofIvy So you are proposing an experiment to do what has "long been known" to be impossible? Throughout you assert that this object has "unknown velocity v". Relative to what? Do you not at least know that any velocity has to be relative to some specified reference point? You do say "The red train is moving to the left at a known constant velocity Vk (relative to the tracks). The black train is not moving relative to the tracks" so, yes, you do know that velocity is relative. But what is the "unknown velocity" you are finding? You ask the reader to "refer to figure 1" but I could not find a figure 1. I will admit that I did not read through this in detail but it appears that you are using "Galilean relativity" while also using the fact that the speed of light is the same constant in all frames of reference, that Galileo did not know. That did cause a great deal of concern at the beginning of the twentieth century, resulting in various experiments to determine "absolute" velocities using light. The null result of those experiments led to the development of "Einsteinian relativity". I suspect that your proposed "experiment" was at least similar to those and would, if actually carried out, also give in a null result.
Hi

Rather than giving a qualitative critique can you please limit your comments strictly to quantitative. I am more than happy for you to point to the exact point in my logic where I am in error.

Fig 1 will be in the PDF entitled fig 1 to 5

Ross

Jul 25th 2019, 05:20 AM   #12
Member

Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
 Originally Posted by HallsofIvy So you are proposing an experiment to do what has "long been known" to be impossible? Throughout you assert that this object has "unknown velocity v". Relative to what? Do you not at least know that any velocity has to be relative to some specified reference point? You do say "The red train is moving to the left at a known constant velocity Vk (relative to the tracks). The black train is not moving relative to the tracks" so, yes, you do know that velocity is relative. But what is the "unknown velocity" you are finding? You ask the reader to "refer to figure 1" but I could not find a figure 1. I will admit that I did not read through this in detail but it appears that you are using "Galilean relativity" while also using the fact that the speed of light is the same constant in all frames of reference, that Galileo did not know. That did cause a great deal of concern at the beginning of the twentieth century, resulting in various experiments to determine "absolute" velocities using light. The null result of those experiments led to the development of "Einsteinian relativity". I suspect that your proposed "experiment" was at least similar to those and would, if actually carried out, also give in a null result.
Not sure if you can be taken seriously if you haven't even read it

Jul 25th 2019, 05:23 AM   #13
Member

Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
 Originally Posted by HallsofIvy So you are proposing an experiment to do what has "long been known" to be impossible? Throughout you assert that this object has "unknown velocity v". Relative to what? Do you not at least know that any velocity has to be relative to some specified reference point? You do say "The red train is moving to the left at a known constant velocity Vk (relative to the tracks). The black train is not moving relative to the tracks" so, yes, you do know that velocity is relative. But what is the "unknown velocity" you are finding? You ask the reader to "refer to figure 1" but I could not find a figure 1. I will admit that I did not read through this in detail but it appears that you are using "Galilean relativity" while also using the fact that the speed of light is the same constant in all frames of reference, that Galileo did not know. That did cause a great deal of concern at the beginning of the twentieth century, resulting in various experiments to determine "absolute" velocities using light. The null result of those experiments led to the development of "Einsteinian relativity". I suspect that your proposed "experiment" was at least similar to those and would, if actually carried out, also give in a null result.
fig 1
Attached Thumbnails

Jul 25th 2019, 05:27 AM   #14
Member

Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
 Originally Posted by HallsofIvy So you are proposing an experiment to do what has "long been known" to be impossible? T.
That is precisely what I am doing.

As it is "impossible", and ridiculously ambitious, Im sure it will be a breeze for you to point out exactly where I am wrong

fire away - I await your quantitative response, I am already in the brace position

 Jul 25th 2019, 05:34 AM #15 Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England Posts: 963 The basic error in the premise of your proposal is that the velocity of the base reference frame (Vu) will alter the timing of the triggering of the strobe. However this would require the time taken for your light pulse to travel a set distance to depend on Vu. This (or at least equivalent) experiment has been performed (many times) and it has been found that whatever the velocity (Vu) of the base reference frame, the time take for light to traverse a set distance is always the same. This constancy of the speed of light is the core fundamental essence of Einstein's Relativity Theories. topsquark likes this. __________________ ~\o/~
Jul 25th 2019, 06:02 AM   #16
Member

Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
 Originally Posted by Woody The basic error in the premise of your proposal is that the velocity of the base reference frame (Vu) will alter the timing of the triggering of the strobe. However this would require the time taken for your light pulse to travel a set distance to depend on Vu. This (or at least equivalent) experiment has been performed (many times) and it has been found that whatever the velocity (Vu) of the base reference frame, the time take for light to traverse a set distance is always the same. This constancy of the speed of light is the core fundamental essence of Einstein's Relativity Theories.
even if I am wrong in that assumption it is not fatal to the experiment.

All that means is the front collimator on the red train will be vertically below point A and at rest wrt the point A, not the rear collimator as I proposed. And the stop watches associated with the front collimator on the red train will get the same result as I propose.

That is precisely why there are lots of collimators on the red train as I predicted people would run simulteneity arguments or the argument you are running, so I negated them ahead of time with lots of collimators.

U could have an near infinite number of collimators on the red train and the result would the be the same as I propose.

Like I said as long as there is a portion of the red train vertically below the point A and at rest wrt point A the experiment will work. It makes no difference if it is the front collimator, the middle the back one, itll give the same result.

Off course people in a closed space subject to an unknown vector will measure the same, they are oblivious to the vector that is messing with thier clock !!Lastly You forgot the caveat to your assertion "will always be the same as measured by a clock that is the subject to an unknown vector. "

I guess once you find the unknown vector you will know what it is relative to, or not

Last edited by RossBlenkinsopPerth; Jul 25th 2019 at 06:18 AM.

 Jul 25th 2019, 06:32 AM #17 Member   Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 71 I can make the red train as long as you like and the experiment will still work
Jul 25th 2019, 03:58 PM   #18
Member

Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
 Originally Posted by Woody This (or at least equivalent) experiment has been performed (many times) and it has been found that whatever the velocity (Vu) of the base reference frame, the time take for light to traverse a set distance is always the same.
Thats fine it should be easy then for you to point out the error in my logic

Again can I have **quantitative** analysis only Im not interested in a friend of a friends half sister told me this wont work

Jul 25th 2019, 04:05 PM   #19
Member

Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Woody This constancy of the speed of light is the core fundamental essence of Einstein's Relativity Theories.
further NOWHERE in my analysis have I assumed the speed of light was some value other than C. So I have abs no idea why you are asserting that is what I have done. It appears you have not read the article

just point to the page number and paragraph where i assert the speed of light is some value other than C ?

thanks

Last edited by RossBlenkinsopPerth; Jul 25th 2019 at 04:07 PM.

Jul 25th 2019, 04:23 PM   #20
Member

Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Woody The basic error in the premise of your proposal is that the velocity of the base reference frame (Vu) will alter the timing of the triggering of the strobe.
what my premise is which is explained in the article

If the closed space is subject to an unknown vector Vu in the direction Vu at magnitude Vu.

In the time the pulse of light travels from the train track on the floor, to the strobe in the ceiling , say 20 meters, there will be a delay (delta T) as the speed of light is finite.

If at T0 the strobe was at position x, as the strobe is subject to Vu, at some later time (delta T)the strobe cannot be at x (unless Vu = 0). I dont need to know where it is, just that it will not be at x. However in delta T the red train is also moving in the direction Vk at magnitude Vk, the question then becomes what is the location of the red train relative to the strobe. In order to avoid the mental gymnastic involved in answering that question, I just added more collimators, as there is a sale on collimators at Colimators R Us so that was the less taxing alternative.

Further, and in any case, it is unimportant. As long as a collimator on the red train is vertically below point A, and at rest wrt point A, my experiment will find Vu and i can add an infinite number of collimators to the red train so the probability of the red train being vertically below point A and at rest wrt to point A is 100%

Last edited by RossBlenkinsopPerth; Jul 25th 2019 at 04:48 PM.

 Tags closed, space, unknown, vector

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post hbadgeress Kinematics and Dynamics 5 Oct 4th 2018 02:47 PM roger Quantum Physics 2 Jan 26th 2015 07:09 PM Stomper Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 1 May 2nd 2014 04:07 AM SpeedBirdNine Kinematics and Dynamics 3 Sep 16th 2011 08:23 AM disclaimer Equilibrium and Elasticity 8 Oct 19th 2008 03:44 AM