Special Relativity Is Refuted
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
If you don't understand, that's it . This is not a problem.
There are others who understand what I'm talking about.
Emil, laser range finders don't work that way. Most of the use a fated version of the same principles applied in sonar. They send out a short series of pulses and time how long they take to get back. Dicier that time by 2 and compare the resulting time to the know distance light would travel in that time.
While there are a few very high end systems that do use incorporate Doppler effects, that still does not involve length contraction.
Length contraction does not apply to distances or photons, it applies only to material objects and even then is only measurable if the object is moving a significant fraction of the speed of light.
The only materiel objects we can observe at such velocities are particles in particle accelerators and in that case the evidence seems to support length contraction.
You believe that because you do not understand how a range finer works. The rangefinder depends on the speed of light being constant.
Just becasuse you are unable to understand something, that does not make it wrong - it just makes it over your head.
You would want!
I think you do not understand the syntax of "the technology used for rangfinder"
When I have time I will describe the device.
I'm looking forward to it - thanks.
Description of operating principle of the device.
http://www.bosch-pt.com/productspecials/professional/dle50/uk/en/start/index.htm
This means that the technology used here allows the measurement of a interval of distance 1.5 mm and a clock, accurate enough to determine a time intervals equal with the time required for the light to travel 1.5mm.
I think this precision is enough .
Make a support of 10 m (or more), which can rotate 360 degrees.
I mount on this support a laser that emits a pulse every 0.1 s.
I mount on this support at 10 m distance from the laser (or more) a receiver.
The receiver has two operating modes: synchronizing and measuring.
He has an internal clock that starts every 0.1 s.
In synchronizing mode, set the clock to 0 when it receives a laser pulse.
In measurement mode displays the internal clock when it receives a laser pulse.
After the receiver has been synchronized with the laser and the laser pulse has traveled the 10 m (or more) in an equal time as the synchronization laser pulse, clock will show 0 s.
If the laser pulse will reach faster the clock will show 0.999999 s.
If the laser pulse will arrive later time will show 0.000001 s.
After I synchronized the laser with the receiver,I rotate the support in different positions, to get 360 gradient, where the clock should show again 0 s.(That demonstrates that the two clocks were not out of synchronizing.)
I am sure that the clock will show different times at different degrees.
http://www.bosch-pt.com/productspecials/professional/dle50/uk/en/start/index.htm
This means that the technology used here allows the measurement of a interval of distance 1.5 mm and a clock, accurate enough to determine a time intervals equal with the time required for the light to travel 1.5mm.
I think this precision is enough .
Make a support of 10 m (or more), which can rotate 360 degrees.
I mount on this support a laser that emits a pulse every 0.1 s.
I mount on this support at 10 m distance from the laser (or more) a receiver.
The receiver has two operating modes: synchronizing and measuring.
He has an internal clock that starts every 0.1 s.
In synchronizing mode, set the clock to 0 when it receives a laser pulse.
In measurement mode displays the internal clock when it receives a laser pulse.
After the receiver has been synchronized with the laser and the laser pulse has traveled the 10 m (or more) in an equal time as the synchronization laser pulse, clock will show 0 s.
If the laser pulse will reach faster the clock will show 0.999999 s.
If the laser pulse will arrive later time will show 0.000001 s.
After I synchronized the laser with the receiver,I rotate the support in different positions, to get 360 gradient, where the clock should show again 0 s.(That demonstrates that the two clocks were not out of synchronizing.)
I am sure that the clock will show different times at different degrees.
Don't hold your breath.
Emil, I saw nothing new in that post.
Personally I don't have any issue with anyone expressing skepticism with respect to an as yet unobserved, prediction of a well established and accepted theory. In this case SR and GR. (and yes this statement may generate a critical response from some). Personally, I have some unanswered questions involving both SR and GR, and I generally approach most of what we discuss in these forums from the perspective of SR and GR.
The problem for me is, that you do not seem to be questioning length contraction. It appears more as if you are attempting to outright refute or deny it. That is where the real problem from my point of view lies. The reason is that other than in some results within the context of the interpretation of observations involving high enegy particles and particle accelerators, we have no observational or experimental evidence to support the prediction of length contraction. We also have no observational or experimental evidence that disproves it.
In the mean time the prediction that length contraction does occur is derived from theory that has other wise been proven an accurate model consistent with experience. Both GR and SR have been extremely successful and length contraction is consistent with the mathematical models upon which they are based.
I can honestly say that I do have some reservations myself concerning the issue of length contraction. Reservations and even unanswered questions are not the same as disproof. Sometimes it is no more than a matter of not fully understanding then issue or phenomena.
Length contraction fits well with a number of other observations that can be accepted as proven. The fact that I, you or anyone else may still have questions is not equivalent to having disproved anything. For my own part it may only be that I have yet to understand fully those things I now question.
Why?
As the Earth moves and the speed is a vector that has value and orientation.
When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light is perpendicular to the orientation of the vector of the speed of the earth I'll measure the value of the speed light.
When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light has the same orientation as the orientation of the vector of the speed of the Earth I'll measure the difference between the value of speed of light and the value of the speed of Earth.
When the orientation of the vector of the speed of the light has the opposite orientation as the orientation of the vector of the speed of the Earth I'll measure the sum between the value of speed of light and the value of the speed of Earth.
This sounds like it is a repeat of the Michelson and Morley experiments, where using an interferometer they were attempting to measure the speed of the Earth relative to the Luminiferous Aether. The apparatus was essentially comparing the velocity of light relative to the Earth's motion in space. The experiments were carried out over the course of a year, to account for seasonal difference and at different times of the day. They found no change in the velocity of light outside of the margin of error for the equipment and conditions.
The experiment has been repeated many times since even as late as the early 1950's, (probably even later than that). One of my uncles, participated as a mathematician in one such series of experiments in the 50's.
There is a great deal of experimental evidence along these lines that supports the universal and constant nature of the speed of light. Lorentz and Fitzgerald both suggested length contract as a reason for the null results of the M&M experiments. Even Lorentz eventually came round to supporting SR as an alternate to his original position.
@OnlyMe,
Yes, indeed.
So far we haven't had a evolved sufficiently technology for such an experiment.
For this reason I said:
Yes, indeed.
So far we haven't had a evolved sufficiently technology for such an experiment.
For this reason I said:
As onlyme suggested this experiment has been carried out, thousands of times in fact. The orientation is different for the inferometers that are used in the measurements. However, they always get the same speed for light. So the experimental evidence says that the speed of the earth is not relevent to the speed of the light measurement. This is simply a fact. Do you think that the measurements are wrong? If so, why? If not how do you explain this?
edited to add: You believe that a hand held range finder is more accurate than the physic experiments that are done around the speed of light? Really?
Emil, I have already commented on the laser ranger finder, as have several others. Find a new horse or present a new argument.
The laser range finder is a horse that won't run in this race. It just does not apply in the way you expect. If it did there would already be evidence to support your position. We have been bouncing laser light off of mirrors placed on the moon during the Apollo missions for years now and never has anything suggested support for your claims.