Re: Do light have velocity dependent trajectories?

On 24 Feb, 11:58, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
j...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
But i am still very confused about the actual concept, if distances
really is a velocity dependent artefact.

Distance is NOT "velocity dependent", it is PATH dependent. But for
observers in two different inertial frames, the natural way of measuring
the distance between two objects is along different paths through
spacetime, and thus they obtain different values.

Yes Tom distance is velocity dependent and even trajectory(vector?)
dependent in SR. The pulsefront is receeding with a velocity of 424
264 km/s from earth but only receeding with 300 000 km/s from earth
although both ship and planet occupied origot at t0, if Randy Poe can
see this with a quick look so should you be able.

One can however argue the pulsfront actually did travel this
*distance* during a time spann of just 1/70.7 seconds in the inertial
frame of the ship *due to time dilation*(i hope you agree with me on
this).

Ok you want to call a distance a path that however does not change the
fact the paths/distances light traveled is unsymmetric thus light
travel variant through space.

NOTE: I do not claim light to be measured variant between different
frames.
I claim that different inertial frames have different lightpath
lengths but i would say distances.

So why would then different frames measure light velocity to be
invariant d/t. Well if you let a defined constant the meter be a
circular argument with a built in idea of light propagating invariant
in space , it is actually unavoidable due to definition.

If you can make a *spatial* vektor/lightpath of 300 000 km to only
have travelled 4243 km within the ships inertial frame during one
second (because that is the length the pule must travel during the
timespann of the inertial frame, or if you prefer the time it *MUST*
be measured to).

You are on the way to selfdelusion or to be a very slick conman. If
you then find out your mistake and try to cover it up by changing the
definition and make it cirular by *DEFINITION/STATEMENT* "A METER IS
THE DISTANCE THE LIGHT TRAVEL IN VACUUM IN 1/299,792,458 OF A SECOND"
i would personally call it fraud.

But more probably people at the SI was mislead by scientists to
beleive that light travels invariant through *SPACE*, which it
obviously do not.

For example, consider the distance between earth and polaris (considered
as fixed points in a single inertial frame). In their mutual rest frame,
they are a distance D apart, and this distance is naturally measured
along a path which is simultaneous in the earth+polaris frame (that's
what we mean by distance measured in a specific frame). An observer in a
spaceship moving at 0.866 c relative to the earth+polaris frame measures
0.5 D as the distance between them, and this distance is likewise
measured along a path that is simultaneous in the spaceship frame. These
two paths are DIFFERENT PATHS through spacetime, and that is why they
measure different values. For instance, these two paths have the same
objects as endpoints, but they end at them at different points in
spacetime (specifically different values of time, measured in either frame).

Distance is always path dependent, in any manifold. The distance from
Chicago to New York is different if one measures via New Orleans or
measures along a straight line. In this case the straight-line value is
clearly what we normally mean by "distance", as it is measured along a
spatial geodesic.

To try to hide an obvious flaw within a theory by redefinition, and
word games does not serve you well Tom i know you know better than
this.

v=d/t and once that definition did make sense it even make sense if
let time be variant due to timedilation. But it does not make sense
anymore once you give up the "d" as a constant. Because you get a
velocity that actually do not tell you how long you travel path / time
unit, the only thing it will measure is the *local* velocity AKA the
inertial velocity.

I know you are smart enough to see this. But there maybe to much time
invested in the subject to admit it. It is easier to try to tweak the
parameters of the flawed theory to make them look consistent.

But ultimately Tom any house build on a ground of pure mud will not
survive, you may try to tweak the structure to fit the ground but in
the end it is not good idea, find some better ground to build the new
house on.

But in the earth/polaris case above BOTH paths are spatial geodesics. In
spacetime, the distance between two objects is analogous to the distance
between two parallel lines in Euclidean geometry:

| |
|* |
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * |
| *|
| |
|------|
| |

Clearly the "distance between the parallel lines" is different for the -
path and the * path, but both paths are spatial geodesics. In spacetime
the parallel lines are the objects' worldlines (extending along the time
axis of their mutual rest frame); due to the hyperbolic structure of
spacetime the - path (i.e. the distance in the earth-polaris frame) is
larger than the * path (in the spaceship frame).

Would that really imply that each velocity vector(inertial frame) has
it's own universe.

No. For the same reason the two different Chicago-New York distances do
not imply the two measurements have their own USA. And for the same
reason the different distance for the * and - paths do not imply they
have their own planes.

You know i did not mean it litteraly i meant that each inertial frame
would raise the question about remap the universe, i do not think it
is a good idea. Let the distance be a spatial constant that is not
vector and velocity dependent AKA frame dependent.Would be a much
better idea Tom.

If time in the end turn out to be variant and velocity dependent. We
will see further along the road, but to let the Lorentz transformation
reduce the validity of measure tools of length (meter/distance) is
just absurd.

If you want to claim realworld contraction in an inertial frame (i do
you not, but some relativists do), then only use it for objects along
that worldline (inertial frame) do not claim that the actual distance
change.
Because if you do we have to find another word for length, and we end
up in absurdum resonemang about proper meter proper distance. There is
only one meter the actual contraction is *just a factor* not a new
meter. And the idea that *ACTUAL DISTANCES* not same between different
"vectors and velocities" aka inertial frames is just *SILLY*.

The only thing that matter for distance measurement is *LOCATION* in
space X,Y,Z and a unit *CONSTANT*. You people should not have fucked
with that constant because now it become a vector and velocity
dependent *VARIABLE* and it just do not make sense.

And as everyone can see talking about velocities v=d/t with a meter
set that is framedependent just do not make sense.


< [... nonsense based on the above misconception omitted]

Snip clip doesn't change fact you do not want people to know that
light travel variant in space but invariant between frames.

Best regards Jonas Thörnvall
Tom Roberts




.

Quantcast