"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message ...
An Extrapolated Light Frame

As we know, there is no light frame.

If you make a small one out of pine, it will be quite light (g).

But there is also no "Born Rigid
Motion" or "coordinate clock".

That sentence doesn't mean anything.

These are theoretical devices that may
help in some analysis of motion, gravity etc.

Is it valid to extrapolate to a light frame?

No.

To do this we consider a
real frame which is fractionally slower than that of light and make the
assumption that an extrapolation to a non-existent frame is valid.

Consider two points A and B separated by a distance of 1Ls in open flat
space.

Let clocks at A and B be synchronised by timing a synchronising beam
from A to B where it is reflected back to A. The clock B is set to Zero
upon the reflection of the beam and the A clock is set to +1s (the time
taken for the light beam to transit the 1Ls distance from B to A).

An object 'C' leaves A in the opposite direction to that of B, travels
some distance and turns 180 DEG. It then accelerates to some speed so
that in the transit between A and B it does not accelerate or
decelerate. The clocks on the moving object are synchronised with A as
it passes by (at a zero separation distance).

Now we consider an object C that attains 0.5c for the transit.

Gamma for that speed is 1.155

FROM FRAME C:
The distance between A and B is 1/1.155=0.866Ls

The time taken to transit that distance is 1.732s (C frame) or 2s (frame
of A and B).

Observer C notes that clocks A and B are not synchronised. That is
because the AB frame is moving relative to the C frame.

The points A and B are travelling at 0.5c in the direction of B to A
(opposite to the direction that C is travelling as observed by observers
at A or B). The distance AB is 0.866Ls (from C frame). The
synchronising beam must have travelled at c+0.5c from A to B and c-0.5
from B to A (beam speed relative to the AB frame as observed/measured by
the C frame).

False. The beam travels at c as measured in frame C.


Paul Cardinale

The baffling fact is the "light frame" is the only proper one. If you dare to
diagonalize a Lorentz Transform, it yields that it's proper directions are on
the light cone.

Unreachable to us, massive and macroscopic objects... What a pity !

More details in http://perso.club-internet.fr/lavaujac/DIAGLorenz.htm.

But sorry, it is in french.

Lavau
--
Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr

http://forums.club-internet.fr/

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...
An Extrapolated Light Frame

As we know, there is no light frame.

If you make a small one out of pine, it will be quite light (g).

But there is also no "Born Rigid
Motion" or "coordinate clock".

That sentence doesn't mean anything.

These are theoretical devices that may
help in some analysis of motion, gravity etc.

Is it valid to extrapolate to a light frame?

No.

To do this we consider a
real frame which is fractionally slower than that of light and make
the
assumption that an extrapolation to a non-existent frame is valid.

Consider two points A and B separated by a distance of 1Ls in open
flat
space.

Let clocks at A and B be synchronised by timing a synchronising beam
from A to B where it is reflected back to A. The clock B is set to
Zero
upon the reflection of the beam and the A clock is set to +1s (the
time
taken for the light beam to transit the 1Ls distance from B to A).

An object 'C' leaves A in the opposite direction to that of B,
travels
some distance and turns 180 DEG. It then accelerates to some speed
so
that in the transit between A and B it does not accelerate or
decelerate. The clocks on the moving object are synchronised with A
as
it passes by (at a zero separation distance).

Now we consider an object C that attains 0.5c for the transit.

Gamma for that speed is 1.155

FROM FRAME C:
The distance between A and B is 1/1.155=0.866Ls

The time taken to transit that distance is 1.732s (C frame) or 2s
(frame
of A and B).

Observer C notes that clocks A and B are not synchronised. That is
because the AB frame is moving relative to the C frame.

The points A and B are travelling at 0.5c in the direction of B to
A
(opposite to the direction that C is travelling as observed by
observers
at A or B). The distance AB is 0.866Ls (from C frame). The
synchronising beam must have travelled at c+0.5c from A to B and
c-0.5
from B to A (beam speed relative to the AB frame as
observed/measured by
the C frame).

False. The beam travels at c as measured in frame C.

Of course the beam travels at c as measured by the c frame. But AB is
MOVING relative to the C frame, so the speed of light can not be both c
relative to the C frame AND the AB frame as measured from C. This is
standard SR and is the standard account of the relativity of
simultaneity.

--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.

"Jacques Lavau" wrote in message
...

The baffling fact is the "light frame" is the only proper one. If you
dare to
diagonalize a Lorentz Transform, it yields that it's proper directions
are on
the light cone.

Unreachable to us, massive and macroscopic objects... What a pity !


Yes, of course it is unreachable. But so is the horizon and especially
the singularity of a black hole, as are the first moments of the big
bang. Extrapolation from measurements taken is not unusual at all.

For the case of light, it is more like Galileo's telescope. As one
would see facts that counter cherished theories, nobody bothers to look.
Scientists stand are around the telescope and simply claim that it could
not possibly work, that stars are massive and can not be made to come
closer to the eye, therefore their is no point in looking down the
telescope.

If time slows and distance contracts is a constant manner as we approach
c, then why not when we are at ).9 (+ an infinite string of 9s) round
off the observation to c?

Being unreachable has never stopped science from extrapolating in areas
where such an extrapolation agrees with either measurements already
taken or models generally accepted.

--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.


More details in http://perso.club-internet.fr/lavaujac/DIAGLorenz.htm.

But sorry, it is in french.

Lavau
--
Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr

http://forums.club-internet.fr/