Pentcho Valev
2014-05-15 22:23:49 UTC
According to special relativity, if a single moving clock successively passes multiple synchronized clocks which are stationary, observers in both frames see that the difference between the reading of the stationary clock just being passed and that of the moving clock increases (in this sense the moving clock runs slower than the stationary clocks):
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/index.html
John Norton: The figure shows the bare essentials of the moving clock and all the other clocks spread out through space. The moving clock agrees with the reading of the leftmost clock--my wristwatch--as it passes by. However when it passes the rightmost, it now reads much less:
Loading Image...
Special relativity also says that the single clock can be regarded as stationary and the multiple synchronized clocks as moving - again, the single (stationary) clock runs slower than the multiple (moving) clocks.
Let us assume that the ants moving along the rectangular line are travelling at 87% the speed of light:
Loading Image...
From what was said above, a single stationary ant watching its brothers go by at 87% the speed of light ages half as fast as them. According to the original twin paradox scenario, however, the single stationary ant must age faster than the moving ants.
Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum which means that the underlying postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is false. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the emitter, as established by Newton's emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/index.html
John Norton: The figure shows the bare essentials of the moving clock and all the other clocks spread out through space. The moving clock agrees with the reading of the leftmost clock--my wristwatch--as it passes by. However when it passes the rightmost, it now reads much less:
Loading Image...
Special relativity also says that the single clock can be regarded as stationary and the multiple synchronized clocks as moving - again, the single (stationary) clock runs slower than the multiple (moving) clocks.
Let us assume that the ants moving along the rectangular line are travelling at 87% the speed of light:
Loading Image...
From what was said above, a single stationary ant watching its brothers go by at 87% the speed of light ages half as fast as them. According to the original twin paradox scenario, however, the single stationary ant must age faster than the moving ants.
Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum which means that the underlying postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is false. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the emitter, as established by Newton's emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev