07-21-2016, 06:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2016, 09:18 PM by Le Repteux.)
Hi everybody, and thanks for your question Alt!
I have exactly the same, but I found a different answer than those that we find on the net. In fact, I have a particular theory on mass that is quite different than the Higgs, and that links mass to motion as with the inertia's principle. That theory needed that the inertial frame principle be reexamined, so I did, and I found some interesting things.
That principle comes from Galileo, who didn't know that light had a limited speed, so he didn't know of course that it could behave differently than massive bodies. Now we know, but we still stick to the idea that it behaves the same as massive bodies when the source and the observer are in the same reference frame, and then we disagree with that idea when they are not. We know that the stars are no more there when we look at them, but we think that they would still be there if they were traveling in the same direction and at the same speed than us. Its a flagrant contradiction, but contradictions do not convince relativists.
My theory on mass needs doppler effect and aberration to be not only produced by motion, but to also act on it, so I added those to the light clock mind experiment to see where I could get. Here is a drawing from wiki about SR that shows a light clock in motion, and its comment that I have translated from french:
If we consider that the real ray is at the right side of the drawings, then it suffers aberration and doppler effect because it is at an angle to the motion. But if that ray suffers doppler effect at the source, then it is automatically nullified at the observer, and if it is sent from the source in the direction of the future position of the observer, then this direction is changed at the observer because the ray suffers aberration, and it is changed in such a way that it appears to come from the actual position of the source whatever the speed of the mirrors, as on the left side of the drawings.
This analysis implies that the flagrant contradiction I was talking about would depend on the reference frame principle, which uses the bodies as a reference for motion, whereas there would be no contradiction if we would take light as a reference instead. The relativists refuse to analyze that possibility because it implies that the light clock might suffer no time dilation. If light has a speed and a direction that are independent of the motion of the source, then it seems natural to use it as an absolute reference. In my theory on mass, light is not only a reference for our measures, it is also a reference for particles' motions. Since its speed is constant, it gives them their constant speed during their inertial motion, and since its direction is constant, it gives that motion a constant direction. I will open a specific thread on that mechanism later on.
I have exactly the same, but I found a different answer than those that we find on the net. In fact, I have a particular theory on mass that is quite different than the Higgs, and that links mass to motion as with the inertia's principle. That theory needed that the inertial frame principle be reexamined, so I did, and I found some interesting things.
That principle comes from Galileo, who didn't know that light had a limited speed, so he didn't know of course that it could behave differently than massive bodies. Now we know, but we still stick to the idea that it behaves the same as massive bodies when the source and the observer are in the same reference frame, and then we disagree with that idea when they are not. We know that the stars are no more there when we look at them, but we think that they would still be there if they were traveling in the same direction and at the same speed than us. Its a flagrant contradiction, but contradictions do not convince relativists.
My theory on mass needs doppler effect and aberration to be not only produced by motion, but to also act on it, so I added those to the light clock mind experiment to see where I could get. Here is a drawing from wiki about SR that shows a light clock in motion, and its comment that I have translated from french:
Quote:
If the setting with two mirrors A and B is seen at rest, the distance that light travels is 2*L. If the setting is seen in motion, the distance traveled is 2*D, longer than 2*L, but traveled at the same speed by light. Thus, the phenomenon takes more time when seen in motion.
![[Image: 1200px-Time-dilation-002-mod.svg.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Time-dilation-002-mod.svg/1200px-Time-dilation-002-mod.svg.png)
If we consider that the real ray is at the right side of the drawings, then it suffers aberration and doppler effect because it is at an angle to the motion. But if that ray suffers doppler effect at the source, then it is automatically nullified at the observer, and if it is sent from the source in the direction of the future position of the observer, then this direction is changed at the observer because the ray suffers aberration, and it is changed in such a way that it appears to come from the actual position of the source whatever the speed of the mirrors, as on the left side of the drawings.
This analysis implies that the flagrant contradiction I was talking about would depend on the reference frame principle, which uses the bodies as a reference for motion, whereas there would be no contradiction if we would take light as a reference instead. The relativists refuse to analyze that possibility because it implies that the light clock might suffer no time dilation. If light has a speed and a direction that are independent of the motion of the source, then it seems natural to use it as an absolute reference. In my theory on mass, light is not only a reference for our measures, it is also a reference for particles' motions. Since its speed is constant, it gives them their constant speed during their inertial motion, and since its direction is constant, it gives that motion a constant direction. I will open a specific thread on that mechanism later on.