The following is an extract from my forthcoming first book A Philosophical Critique of Perception and Motion which will challenge long held beliefs and assumptions on motion - flawed assumptions which led Einstein to formulate his theory of relativity.
Brian Cox of BBC presented a slightly different version of Einstein's light on the train paradox. They had Jim Al-Khalili sitting on a chair whilst lifting up and down a light source. Then one of the crew pushed the chair left and right across the floor on tracks. There is no light beam as such unlike in the train example - nowhere does a light beam hit a mirror and then be deflected back, yet a slight of hand is played when Cox later presents it as such at the blackboard. The only light beams involved are those that reach Jim and the audience from the light source.
All relevant motion that occurs during the clip is a combination of relative motion due to the movement of Jim's arm and the absolute motion of the chair. The independent motion of the light must be separated from this motion, that is, the light that reaches both Jim's and the audience’s eyes. These light beams move at the speed of light at all times. They are emitted perpendicular and outwards to and from Jim, while the sidewards and upwards / downwards movement of the light source is entirely due to the chair and arm motion.
So as you can see, once we isolate the separate motions, that of the light beams and that of the light source, we can very easily see through the fog of confusion. During the clip, Cox confuses the light source with the beams of light emitting from it giving the false impression that it is the light beam that is moving as a result of the moving chair, when in fact, it is the light source that is moving. Cox says "the light took a kind of triangular path". While Einstein was referring to the light beam on the train, Cox is talking about the light source. So the BBC presentation is in no way comparable to Einstein's train example.
The triangular path that we see then is caused by the moving light source and it is this which appears different to Jim’s (fact of perception) head camera view showing the vertical motion of the light source. The beams of light emitted from it are at all times and for all observers moving at fixed rates. Think of the light source as a machine gun, and the light beams as the bullets. The bullets are moving at the same rates for everyone, the gun however is moving sidewards and upwards. From the turret, the man pulling the trigger will see the upwards and downwards motion of the gun but he will also perceive the sidewards motion as he moves across the face of the targets opposite with the targets falling horizontally in a line like dominoes. Likewise, Jim also sees the lights behind the audience moving horizontally. But even if he didn't, the light beams would still be moving at the same rate for everyone.
Thus, there is no longer path for the light to travel in either case, the light beams, just like the bullets, travel the same paths from all perspectives, and Cox’s conclusion that moving clocks run slower is therefore false because his analysis is completely wrong. He failed to define properly the components of his experiment and therefore drew completely incorrect conclusions.
Previously I wrote about the forces occurring when a car is braking or accelerating. Suppose that when a car brakes, a torch that is switched on is thrown forwards by the opposing brake force. Is it the light beam or the light source that experiences the force? It is of course the torch, the light source. The light beam moves exactly as before, the only difference is it's starting position changes as the torch moves through the air. The same happens with the Sun, the Sun (the light source) moves through the Galaxy but this does not affect the speed of the light emitted from it.
With the BBC clip, the starting position of the light beams are also continually moving but this has no impact on the independent motion of the light beams themselves.
Therefore the speed of the light does not change with different observers, and neither of course does the distance or the time measured. Appearances and facts of perception are not reality, and the (absolute) motion of a light source is not relevant to the independent motion of the light beam. The existence of this absolute motion does however prove that absolute space and time must exist.
I'm still finishing the book, which I hope to have ready in December.
No comments:
Post a Comment