Relativity of Count – Spin Counter

[James S Saint]

So as to correct for my mistake of using an inline material spin counter, I am reposting this using a transverse spinner, optical or not. The original is appended below.

It is true that all measurements are relative. This must be true simply because a measurement is a comparison, a relative measure. But if you cross-check ("transverse") and verify your measurements then correct for consistency and cohesiveness, you discover absolute measure that is the same for all. Thus measurements are only relative when you don't cross verify them and correct for the logical inconsistencies.

The following is an example of literally "cross" verifying so as to either correct for irrational conclusions, or be forced to accept even more irrational conclusions.

If we get on a train and time the train’s travel over 1000 meters, we can calculate the train’s velocity;

v = dx/dt

But if our watch is running slow, we will measure incorrectly and think the train was going faster than it really was.

v’ = dx/dt’

We know that when something moves very quickly, its clocks will run slower. So we know that we don’t have to have a broken watch for us to measure the wrong velocity. But the equation v’ = dx/dt’ requires that we make a choice that either our velocity measured, v’ is wrong or the length of the track has shortened, dx’, just because we were moving.

Lorentz
The Lorentz equations seem to have chosen to say that our distance has “really” shortened rather than say that we are merely experiencing the effects of a slower clock thus not measuring the “real” velocity. Why is that?

The result of this choice is that we have “relativity of simultaneity” saying that someone will think that 2 events happened at the same time while another thinks they happened at different times rather than having someone think he was going at one speed and another thinks that he was going at a different speed.

The Lorentz equations assume there is a "real" velocity thus there cannot be a "real" length.

Is there some reason for that Lorentz/Einstein choice?

Transverse Spin Counter
If we mount a transverse spin counter on the train and count the number of transverse spins during the train’s 1000 meter run, the Lorentz equations will yield the same number of spins as anyone at the station would count for that same length of time, especially if it is optic, because transverse time isn’t effected by linear motion and certainly optic time isn't. The spin counter would correct for the time dilated slower clock and measure the correct velocity.

So can we say that if a train has a spin counter on it, its length, “dx’ “ doesn’t dilate and thus when it believes things are simultaneous they really will be?

Our other choice is to say that due to Lorentz equations we must accept “relativity of count” wherein our otherwise unaffected count of anything will have to change merely because we were moving (maybe now we know where that missing passenger went?).

Einstein defined time by saying that it couldn't be defined as anything but "the hands on a clock turning". That is an imprecise way to define time.

Distance is the "measure of relative position".
Velocity/Motion is the "measure of change in relative position".
Time is the "measure of relative velocity/motion".
Time dilation is the "measure of change in relative velocity/motion".

That is why you change the velocity, v', rather than the distance, x'.

As Rational Metaphysics explains;
There are an infinite number of points between any 2 affects. And even though 2 * inf and inf are infinite, they are not equally infinite. Thus merely by moving yourself, you cannot alter the number of points between 2 other affects from inf to 2 * inf. You would have to move them relative to each other, not yourself.

Always very carefully cross-check what is in the Coolaid.

=================================Original Post==============================================
It seems as though special relativity requires that we adjust any “number of count” the faster we go.

A spin counter is exactly what the name implies, a device that merely counts the number of spins or full cycles of anything turning in a circle. As it turns out, a spin counter is useful for resolving a few issues in relativity concerning time and distance dilation. For an example of the use of a spin counter, let’s look at the classic train passing a station scenario.

A small wheel on the train and track is going to be our spinning object for us to count. And let’s say for simplicity that the train has a wheel on it with a circumference of 1meter. If the train is slowly run down a track of 1000m, obviously the wheel will turn 1000 times. But how many times will it turn if that same train were going near the speed of light? Would it change? According to current special relativity, it must.

Velocity, v = dx/dt.

The change in the distance, dx divided by the change in the time, dt, is how we define and measure velocity in all relativity fundamentals.

What this means to us is that if that train were going at 100m/sec, it would travel the distance of 1000m in exactly 10 seconds. That is 1000 spins in 10 seconds. But that is measured by the ground and an observer at the station.

As we have been taught, special relativity tells us that the time read by the train, dt’ will be shorter than what the station reads for the run.

dt > dt’

But then if v = dx/dt and dt’ is less than dt, then the distance measured by the train must also change to cause length dilation;

v = dx/dt = dx’/dt’
thus if dt > dt’, then dx > dx’ by the same ratio.

So the train will not only think that it took less time to travel down the track, but it must also believe the track to be shorter than 1000m.

But is that really true? Special relativity says it is true.

Note that we had to recalculate our distance measured by the train because to get the same velocity v, we had to change dx’. But what if the train merely accepted that it was going at a different velocity, v’ rather than a different distance? What if;

v = dt/dt <> v’ = dx’/dt’

If the train were to accept that it was going at a different velocity, then it could accept that the track is really 1000m just as the station measures. So how do we know which to accept? Do we say the train will see the track as shorter, or do we say that the train will see its velocity as more than the station measured? How do we decide?

Well, look at the spin counter. If the train views the track to be less than 1000m, the spin counter, in constant contact with the track, will not count 1000 turns before it reaches the end of the run. From the train’s perspective, the wheel diameter doesn’t change so its circumference is still 1m. If the track had a wheel marker at the end of the run and it locked its spin counter wheel at the end of the run, the spin counter could not yet be up to 1000.

But how many counts would the station count if the train were moving that fast? Special relativity requires that the train wheel would length dilate and seem more as an oval, but still the same height. Thus the circumference of the wheel would seem shorter. That means it would have to spin more times to get to 1000m.

So the station counts the number of spins as more than 1000 and the train counts the number of spins as less than 1000.

So now, do we accept that the distance of the track was not dilated from the train’s perspective, or do we accept that the number of a count is relative to speed?


If the “number of count” is relative to speed as current special relativity seems to require, and we started with 100 people on the train all lined in a row, how many would we have when the train got up to half the speed of light? How many would a station count on the train? How many at the speed of light? Where did they go? Are you sure you really want to travel the speed of light?

==============================================================

The Lorentz equations for calculating time and distance effects of motion have been around for over 100 years. They have always assumed that there is only one velocity measured by both moving and non-moving objects and declare that both time and distance must change to account for it. Time certainly does change in measurement for moving objects, but change in measured distance rather than measured velocity?

If we choose instead to assume that the velocity of the train were seen as being different as measured by the train rather than the distance, our spin counter would count the same for either and thus resolve this puzzle. But if we were to do that, think how many equations would have to change. Did anyone say, “job shortage”?

[PhysBang]

This is not a new argument against SR. It has made the rounds on a number of crank websites dedicated to overthrowing SR and it probably has its origins in some textbook somewhere. It is likely that someone who was not able to work their way through the problem decided to try to use it as an argument against relativity instead.

The fundamental unit in SR is the spacetime distance. This distance is measured between two events and it is always the same number in every frame of reference that uses the same units ( centimetre, kilometre, mile, etc.). The spatial length and the temporal length between two events will change depending on frame of reference used, but the spacetime distance will remain the same.

SR is also event-preserving. That is, if a certain number of specific events happen in a scenario in one reference frame, then that same number of specific events will occur regardless of the reference frame we use to describe that scenario. In the use of SR, one often refers to any spacetime point as an event, so I use the terminology "specific event" to refer to the result of some physical interaction, such as the collision of two objects or a timer going off.

So if we are provided with a distance between two events and we are told that a certain number of events happen between these events, we can be sure in SR that any reference frame that we use has the same number of events. Additionally, if we are given exact details for the location of these events in one reference frame, then we can find the location of these events in any reference frame.

What we can't do is claim that the spatial distance that these events span is the same in one reference frame as it is in another. We also cannot claim that the temporal distance that these events span is the same as one reference frame as it is in another.

In the scenario at hand, we have a wheel that spins in contact with the ground. One point on the wheel performs a specific event 1000 times. That is, one specific point on the wheel hits the ground 1000 times. These events will happen in every reference frame. In one sense, they will happen at the same location in every reference frame. However, the coordinate assigned to each location depends on the frame used.

What the scenario above really shows is that relativity demands that we cannot expect things like regular counters to behave the same in every reference frame. In some they will count faster than they do in others. This is hardly surprising, since these regular counters are effectively clocks and SR tells us that clocks behave differently when they are in relative motion.

You can work this out for yourself or read up on relativity theory in a good book.

[James S Saint]

You can work this out for yourself or read up on relativity theory in a good book.

In other words, you can't.

Typically just words without substance. Try explaining it in detail.

[MrMermaid]

I'd like to add that as the train wheel is rotating, the point of contact of the wheel with the track has a speed relative to the ground of 0, and the uppermost point of the wheel has a speed relative to the ground of 2v. So the length contraction of the wheel isn't into an oval compressed in the x-axis, it is much more complicated. Does this help to account for the constant 1000 spins over a contracted length of track as measured from the train? As the train approaches c, does the wheel eventually stop spinning? I lay no claim to knowledge of answers to these questions; maybe someone else would care to enlighten me?

[Tab]

I think many of these apparent paradoxes will be resolved as soon as the Japanese manage to get their trains running at the speed of light. Then you could probably construct your own spinner, the Japs having done the hard part.

[James S Saint]

I'd like to add that as the train wheel is rotating, the point of contact of the wheel with the track has a speed relative to the ground of 0, and the uppermost point of the wheel has a speed relative to the ground of 2v. So the length contraction of the wheel isn't into an oval compressed in the x-axis, it is much more complicated. Does this help to account for the constant 1000 spins over a contracted length of track as measured from the train? As the train approaches c, does the wheel eventually stop spinning? I lay no claim to knowledge of answers to these questions; maybe someone else would care to enlighten me?

You can't imagine how refreshing it is for me to run across a real thinker.

It just so happens that I am writing a paper on that very subject (except concerning photon and electron spins). And you are right in that the dilation effect would calculate out to be far more complicated than a simple oval. But you don't really have to calculate out the entire exact values. Every point on the wheel will be more contracted than it was as a circle. So even though it won't be a symmetric oval, it will certainly be more narrow. There is no point on the wheel that has any impetus to be greater in diameter.

The center of the wheel would obviously be tracking the speed of the train. The top of the wheel would be twice the speed of the train, thus the top would contract even more. The end result is somewhat of an egg shape, still never as round at any point as the circle or the height in diameter.

And yes, time dilation in the direction of motion must bring the spin to a stop as any spinning object reaches light speed. Interestingly, the transverse spin does not change. And even more interestingly, what that means is that every atom in an object moving near the speed of light, will form a magnetic dipole and become a magnet. Even a block of wood, would develop a magnetic field and crush itself. The properties of materials completely alter at extreme speeds.

So the short answer is that the wheel must still seem to have a shorter circumference when it is traveling faster.

And I might add that from the train's perspective, the wheel becomes a bit egg shaped too. The horizontal diameter remains the same, but the lower half gets larger as the upper half gets smaller. This forms a squashed egg shape. But the upper and lower halves, in effect, cancel each other's circumference effect.


But great observation.

[PhysBang]

And yes, time dilation in the direction of motion must bring the spin to a stop as any spinning object reaches light speed. Interestingly, the transverse spin does not change. And even more interestingly, what that means is that every atom in an object moving near the speed of light, will form a magnetic dipole and become a magnet. Even a block of wood, would develop a magnetic field and crush itself. The properties of materials completely alter at extreme speeds.

It is definitely not the case that a block of wood moving at near the speed of light would crush itself if it were moving at near the speed of light. We already know this from our own experience because every block of wood that we have ever encountered is moving at near the speed of light relative to some object.

In other words, you can't.

Typically just words without substance. Try explaining it in detail.

And yet you are the one making crazy, unsupported claims about blocks of wood that obviously violate our experience. And let's not forget that while I took relativity at university not too long ago, you have admitted that you haven't read anything on the subject (except wikipedia) fro 35 years.

[jonquil]

This is the best argument against Special Relativity ever, by PK Dick.

The failure of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment in 1881, in which the absolute velocity of the Earth moving through luminiferous ether proved to be zero, gave rise to Einstein's Relativity Theory, which holds that the concept "absolute velocity" is meaningless. However, scientists at UCLA, using more sophisticated laser techniques, have suggested a more probable significance of the null result: that in fact the Earth does not move and that Copernicus was a crypto-Pythagorean determined to vindicate an ancient and discredited heliocentric solar system model. In a meeting of Southern California astronomers and astrophysicists it was proposed that 1) the geocentric solar system be restored as the proper model, and 2) that Copernicus be dug up and admonished. As a side issue, Einstein will be regarded with mild disfavor and some amusement, but scientists attending the meeting could not agree on the amount of amusement to be formally proposed.

Since jonquil loves to be amused and never bored by stupid old facts, good science, and real history, this will now become her official view of the world in a most special and relative pre-Newtonian light as well since, as far as she knows, gravity is just a phantasm anyway. Thus, she advises all travelers to take extra precautions by wearing dragon-proof clothing and packing shoes with suction cups on the bottom when visiting the Antipodes. Furthermore, she plans to organize a bonfire of the pedantries where participants with their propeller beanies can clap and sing to the tune of Stars and Stripes Forever under red, white, and blue painted zeppelins floating in the smoke.

[MrMermaid]

I think I've come to a conclusion about your refutation of S.R.

Essentially as the wheel is turning relative to the train, with a velocity of v at the circumference of the wheel, the entire wheel's circumference contracts by an equal amount as viewed from the train: the wheel's radius gets smaller, and is indeed proportional to the amount by which the track (as viewed from the train) gets shorter. The wheel still rotates 1000 times. Paradox resolved, case closed. Sorry.

Note that we had to recalculate our distance measured by the train because to get the same velocity v, we had to change dx’. But what if the train merely accepted that it was going at a different velocity, v’ rather than a different distance? What if;

v = dt/dt <> v’ = dx’/dt’

If the train were to accept that it was going at a different velocity, then it could accept that the track is really 1000m just as the station measures. So how do we know which to accept? Do we say the train will see the track as shorter, or do we say that the train will see its velocity as more than the station measured? How do we decide?

How is this even possible? Are you saying that the rate at which an observer, motionless with respect to the track, measures the train to be travelling at, will differ from the rate at which an observer on the train will measure the ground to be speeding by? This is nonsense. Think of it like this:
On the roof of the train, there is a sodium light bulb. There is an equivalent bulb hanging over the tracks at the station. Also on the train is an observer with a spectroscope, and there is a second observer with an equivalent spectroscope at the station. As the train approaches the station, the observation of the light from the train's bulb by the observer at the platform will show that the spectral lines of the sodium bulb have been blue-shifted, proportionally to the velocity of the train. The observer on the train will see an exactly equal blue-shifting of the light from the bulb at the station. This is obvious, and easily experimentally tested. There's no need to measure lengths to calculate relative velocity; one can do it purely using this method. This avoids any question of whether the observer on the train can measure a different velocity because of the length or time dilation issues - it's impossible. Plain and simple.

[James S Saint]

I think I've come to a conclusion about your refutation of S.R.

Essentially as the wheel is turning relative to the train, with a velocity of v at the circumference of the wheel, the entire wheel's circumference contracts by an equal amount as viewed from the train: the wheel's radius gets smaller, and is indeed proportional to the amount by which the track (as viewed from the train) gets shorter. The wheel still rotates 1000 times. Paradox resolved, case closed. Sorry.

Oh you brought that up too soon in the thread. I would run across the one bright guy so soon. You have a good point (I think) that if a spinning ring dilates to an observer, it will appear to have a shorter circumference. I will have to calculate to see if it matches the track properly. I am just trying to come up with situations to bring out an error that I know is there already due to other issues. Perhaps this is insufficient.

Lorentz assumes the distance to dilate and then adjusts everything to match it. That forms a "consistent system of logic" that can possibly be perfect as long as it doesn't ever violate anything else (no other assumption will be free in that nothing is independent of anything else, but you can use a single one as a base). I'll have to give this some more thought. Thank you.

Note that we had to recalculate our distance measured by the train because to get the same velocity v, we had to change dx’. But what if the train merely accepted that it was going at a different velocity, v’ rather than a different distance? What if;

v = dt/dt <> v’ = dx’/dt’

If the train were to accept that it was going at a different velocity, then it could accept that the track is really 1000m just as the station measures. So how do we know which to accept? Do we say the train will see the track as shorter, or do we say that the train will see its velocity as more than the station measured? How do we decide?

How is this even possible? Are you saying that the rate at which an observer, motionless with respect to the track, measures the train to be travelling at, will differ from the rate at which an observer on the train will measure the ground to be speeding by? This is nonsense.

They each choose time and distance to measure velocity. If either chooses a different ratio between those, they WILL measure a different velocity. There is nothing magical about that. The track is seen as shorter by special relativity (distance). It seems far more magical to me to assume that they see the same track as a different length.

Lorentz assumes distance dilation
Saint assumes velocity dilation

The only question is which of those cannot fit the rest of reality without making even more non-intuitive assumptions, if either.

Think of it like this:
On the roof of the train, there is a sodium light bulb. There is an equivalent bulb hanging over the tracks at the station. Also on the train is an observer with a spectroscope, and there is a second observer with an equivalent spectroscope at the station. As the train approaches the station, the observation of the light from the train's bulb by the observer at the platform will show that the spectral lines of the sodium bulb have been blue-shifted, proportionally to the velocity of the train. The observer on the train will see an exactly equal blue-shifting of the light from the bulb at the station. This is obvious, and easily experimentally tested. There's no need to measure lengths to calculate relative velocity; one can do it purely using this method. This avoids any question of whether the observer on the train can measure a different velocity because of the length or time dilation issues - it's impossible. Plain and simple.

Such shifting is an issue of time and distance. The distance between the wave peaks determines the spectrum as time passes (frequency). The source of the light is proposed to be causing a faster cycle time due to its motion toward the station. But it also assumes the consistency of the speed of light travel to the observer (each peak). One assumption offsets the other. So even seeing the effect you mention, doesn't resolve which of 2 possible variables is "right".

Special relativity says the speed of light IS consistent (not merely observed to be).
Saint says the speed of light is not consistent, but will merely be observed to be.

It is an issue of two wrongs may not make a right, but lefts will. The question is who is really making the 3 lefts?

It is similar to Galileo and the Church concerning the Helical universe.

[PhysBang]

Oh you brought that up too soon in the thread. I would run across the one bright guy so soon. You have a good point (I think) that if a spinning ring dilates to an observer, it will appear to have a shorter circumference. I will have to calculate to see if it matches the track properly. I am just trying to come up with situations to bring out an error that I know is there already due to other issues. Perhaps this is insufficient.

You keep talking about "other issues" whenever one of your threads falls apart and you are shown to be dead wrong on your premises. Eventually you will abandon this thread to for another one that you will promise will really bring out the central issues. Given your track record, it is unlikely you will succeed.

Lorentz assumes distance dilation
Saint assumes velocity dilation

The only question is which of those cannot fit the rest of reality without making even more non-intuitive assumptions, if either.

The Lorentz transformations are not simply a change in spatial length; they are also a change in time in two different ways. Regardless, if you can recover any of the phenomena predicted by SR with your "velocity dilation" it would be amazing. Let's see your work.

Special relativity says the speed of light IS consistent (not merely observed to be).
Saint says the speed of light is not consistent, but will merely be observed to be.

It is an issue of two wrongs may not make a right, but lefts will. The question is who is really making the 3 lefts?

It is similar to Galileo and the Church concerning the Helical universe.

Well, it is similar up to the point that the Church had power, whereas you don't have any power to silence SR. Oh, wait, you think that you are Galileo. OK, then, the scenario is similar up to the point that Galileo had empirical evidence and you have absolutely none.

[James S Saint]

Well one thought has occurred to me;

If the wheel is a light circle (a photon circling at the speed of light), by Lorentz, its circumference distance doesn't contract.

df = 1 / (1-(v/c)^2)^1/2

The train would be going at half the speed of light, but the diameter of the wheel must remain constant because the distance traveled by light must be constant to all observers.

The track would appear to be half as long as the station thought it to be, so the wheel would only report half the number of turns before the train got to the end.

An excellent thought though, but the math doesn't work out - no Havana.

Back in the game.

[James S Saint]

Well, it is similar up to the point that the Church had power, whereas you don't have any power to silence SR. Oh, wait, you think that you are Galileo. OK, then, the scenario is similar up to the point that Galileo had empirical evidence and you have absolutely none.

I am not the Church in the analogy, DW. Why don't you wait for Carl to give you the right words to say.

[James S Saint]

Actually a light wheel spinner in the direction of travel can't be used (is cheating). I originally had this scenario as a transverse spinner, not affected by axial line of motion. I thought I had lucked out with the idea of using a train wheel, but no such luck.

So, if you take the same scenario, but have the spinner spinning in the transverse direction to travel, the rest of the scenario is the same. The number of spins before the train gets to the end of the track is the question.

The station sees maybe 1000 spins in 10secs. The train, although time dilated in the direction of travel, sees the same rate of spin to any transverse spinning, 1000/10secs. But the train believes it takes less time to get to the end, perhaps 9 secs, thus the number of spins seen by the train has to be less; 900 spins.

[PhysBang]

Why don't you actually use the Lorentz transformations to actually work out exactly how many times a transverse wheel will spin? Such a transverse wheel is simply another kind of clock, so it should be easy to work out. Then you don't have to simply guess, like you are right now.

(Hint: right now, you have things somewhat backwards.)

[James S Saint]

Actually you could use light wheels for the scenario if you made the track out of a series of light wheels rather than a fixed rail. Or even if the rail itself was moving at a slower rate to allow for the train to not be exceeding the speed of light.

And Phys, read a book. Lorentz doesn't deal with transverse motion.

[James S Saint]

And then yet a fourth way is to have a reflective optic ring mounted on top of the train where both station and train could count the spins of the photons around the ring.

The train, seeing no change in the ring and taking only 9 seconds to make the journey, would count a certain number of spins. But the station, seeing the ring as a dilated oval would see the distance for the photon travel to be less and thus yield more spins. And in addition, the station reads that it took the train 10 seconds to make the journey and thus not only is the path of the photons shorter, but the time allotted is longer and thus reads considerably more spin counts.

And a fifth way is to have the station with a separate photon ring of its own. The station counts a certain number of spins in 10 seconds while the train, reading its own identical spin counter counts less in the 9 seconds the journey takes (transverse or not).

How many ways do we have to prove that it isn't the Lorentz distance that is changing.

[James S Saint]

Yet another way ( #6) provided by MrMermaid;

Using an absolute frame of reference, the following diagram displays the effects of spectrum shifting.

Spin - Absolute Blue Shift.jpg (78.53 KiB) Viewed 1252 times

In this diagram, the top wave is presumed to be the actual, “absolute frame”, frequency of a light source. A train station, S uses that same type of source to produce a light wave, but it is moving fast enough to cause the light headed toward the absolute frame to be at twice the frequency as measured by that frame, it is “blue shifted”. But also the light leaving the station in the other direction is red shifted to one half the frequency.

A railcar on a train is moving twice as fast toward the absolute frame as the station and thus produces a frequency of 4 times what the absolute frame would have produced, “ultra blue-shifted”.

As the railcar views the light coming from the station, it sees that light through 2 types of filtering, Doppler shifting (D) and Time dilation (T). The effect of the Doppler shift due to the train approaching the station is that the frequency of the light is increased to what the absolute frame would have produced. But the effect of the Time shift due to the train approaching the station would also increase the frequency because the train’s time is running slower, thus blue shifted.

From the station’s perspective seeing the light coming from the train, there are also the two filters but the Time shift for the station is zero relative to the train’s motion toward it. This could also be expressed in terms of the absolute frame wherein both were time shifted, the train twice as much due to going at twice the speed.

But even though the Time shifting doesn’t affect the light seen from the train, there is still a Doppler effect due to the motion difference. The railcar is producing a frequency 4 times absolute, but the station is moving away from the source even though not enough to outrun the train. Thus the Doppler effect is to reduce the frequency from its 4 times to merely a 2 times, thus blue shifted.

Thus without any length dilation involved but merely an absolute frame, the station and the train will perceive the same blue shift.

But if we allow the train to experience length dilation effects, we must add that additional filter (L). Due to any length dilation perceived by the railcar, the wave peaks coming toward it must be perceived as shorter, increasing the frequency again.

Thus if the train and the station see the same degree of blue shifting, there cannot be length dilation occurring on the train.

[Farsight]

Just use an electron. We create an electron out of light via pair production, the electron has spin angular momentum, and the Einstein de-Haas effect tells us this spin is real.

So what's going round and round? Light. It's just a circular version of the back-and-forth motion in the simple inference of time dilation.

So you've got light going round and round at the speed of light in a circular path. Then when you move the train the light path is helical. If you move the train at c the light can't be going round and round any more.

Special relativity is dead simple once it clicks. And the evidence is there in pair production and annihilation, electron spin, magnetic dipole moment, etc.

[James S Saint]

Just use an electron. We create an electron out of light via pair production, the electron has spin angular momentum, and the Einstein de-Haas effect tells us this spin is real.

So what's going round and round? Light. It's just a circular version of the back-and-forth motion in the simple inference of time dilation.

So you've got light going round and round at the speed of light in a circular path. Then when you move the train the light path is helical. If you move the train at c the light can't be going round and round any more.

Yeah, I almost mentioned it as an electron. But I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea of light spinning in a circle.

Btw, when an electron gets going really fast, it still has spin, but not much in the direction of travel. It forms a magnetic dipole in the direction of travel.

[PhysBang]

Actually you could use light wheels for the scenario if you made the track out of a series of light wheels rather than a fixed rail. Or even if the rail itself was moving at a slower rate to allow for the train to not be exceeding the speed of light.

But you would have to tel us how these "light wheels" would work. Is something rotating in order to send out light in different directions? Photons don't simply turn for no reason.

And Phys, read a book. Lorentz doesn't deal with transverse motion.

What Lorentz might have dealt with is irrelevant because he did not actually have all of the transformations that today bear his name and he did not develop the theory of relativity. However, the Lorentz transformations deals with timing. You are claiming that we will see some difference in timing.

But let's accept that what you say about the Lorentz transformations. If it is true that the Lorentz transformations do not effect your peculiar wheel, then what is your motivation for claiming that in SR one frame will have less spins than in another frame? If the Lorentz transformations don't apply, then what is your basis for your guess about the difference? Are you simply making guesses without any foundation?

As always, because you have never actually had to work all the way through a problem in SR, you don't see the fundamental problems in your scenarios. You quit every one of your SR threads when somebody finally shows one of your fundamental mistakes. Learning to actually complete a basic problem from an SR textbook would aid you immensely.

And then yet a fourth way is to have a reflective optic ring mounted on top of the train where both station and train could count the spins of the photons around the ring.

The train, seeing no change in the ring and taking only 9 seconds to make the journey, would count a certain number of spins. But the station, seeing the ring as a dilated oval would see the distance for the photon travel to be less and thus yield more spins. And in addition, the station reads that it took the train 10 seconds to make the journey and thus not only is the path of the photons shorter, but the time allotted is longer and thus reads considerably more spin counts.

If the reflector actually made only 9 spins in the train frame, then it would only make 9 spins in any other frame. Any other frame would see that the reflector spun more slowly that the train frame measured. This is basic SR.

And a fifth way is to have the station with a separate photon ring of its own. The station counts a certain number of spins in 10 seconds while the train, reading its own identical spin counter counts less in the 9 seconds the journey takes (transverse or not).

This is again simply vanilla SR, no paradox at all. Clocks operate differently at different speeds.

Using an absolute frame of reference, the following diagram displays the effects of spectrum shifting.

Why should we use an absolute reference frame? Again, if you are trying to prove relativity to be wrong or paradoxical, you have to prove this using the actual theory. SR rejects that there are absolute reference frames.

As the railcar views the light coming from the station, it sees that light through 2 types of filtering, Doppler shifting (D) and Time dilation (T). The effect of the Doppler shift due to the train approaching the station is that the frequency of the light is increased to what the absolute frame would have produced. But the effect of the Time shift due to the train approaching the station would also increase the frequency because the train’s time is running slower, thus blue shifted.

According to the train, the station's time is running slower. Thus according to your logic, the light from the train should be red shifted.

Regardless, let's see you work out the actual calculations of how much blue or red shifting there is in any frame. If you want to actually say something about SR, then let's see you demonstrate how SR actually treats this situation.

How many ways do we have to prove that it isn't the Lorentz distance that is changing.

You actually have to use the Lorentz transformations to prove anything relevant. Yet when challenged to do so, you clammed up and claimed that they do not apply. This is similar to the deceptive behaviour you used in another thread here, where your point was trashed very badly by multiple posters and you then claimed that you meant something different from your original post (though evidence at other message boards proves otherwise). So either provide an example that uses the Lorentz transformations to derive some difference between frames (the only way that SR ever derives a difference between frames) or move along.

[James S Saint]

Phys, learn SR yourself. You have displayed many times how little you know while demeaning anyone else. Do you ever say ANYthing that isn't BS?

I haven't "just quit" any thread. Since you and Carl were stuck on Lorentz in the Stopped Clock paradox, I went ahead and deposed Lorentz in this thread as a separate issue. In that thread, Lorentz isn't really the issue. The paradox is in SR without Lorentz. SR and Lorentz are different things. If you use Lorentz to defend SR, you merely use a false presumption to try to escape the paradox.

In this thread, I have used Lorentz only to display how Lorentz equations force an error and different paradox. In this thread, I accept time dilation and show how you cannot accept length dilation. Lorentz assumes both. Thus the Lorentz equations not only are in question, but have actually been completely debunked and cannot be used in that other paradox thread to defend SR. If an answer to this thread scenario cannot be given to repose Lorentz, I will return to the Stopped Clock Paradox and ask for any takers, but Lorentz will obviously not be allowed as a defense any more than someone saying, "Well, God can do anything, so...".

[PhysBang]

Phys, learn SR yourself. You have displayed many times how little you know while demeaning anyone else. Do you ever say ANYthing that isn't BS?

I haven't "just quit" any thread. Since you and Carl were stuck on Lorentz in the Stopped Clock paradox, I went ahead and deposed Lorentz in this thread as a separate issue. In that thread, Lorentz isn't really the issue. The paradox is in SR without Lorentz. SR and Lorentz are different things. If you use Lorentz to defend SR, you merely use a false presumption to try to escape the paradox.

You admitted that what you had declared as a paradox in that thread was not a paradox. In this thread, while you have invoked the name of Lorentz, you haven't ever actually used the Lorentz transformations. People who do SR don't really care about Lorentz, since he didn't really develop the equations that bear his name into what we call SR today. So far, you are doing a really, really bad job of supposedly continuing the thread that you actually quit.

In this thread, I have used Lorentz only to display how Lorentz equations force an error and different paradox.

Without actually using these equations.

In this thread, I accept time dilation and show how you cannot accept length dilation.

Without actually showing any work but by making lots of guesses.

If you are so sure that there is a problem, why not actually show us with the actual Lorentz transformations? I know that in the past, every time that you have tried to rigorously approach this subject you have been shown to be dismally incorrect, but maybe this time will be different.

[Farsight]

Don't feed the troll, James. He's just trying to spoil the thread and deter readers and contributors.

The length contraction isn't as bad as you think. It's an observer effect rather than something real - we know this because a star a billion miles away doesn't flatten to a disc just because you accelerated your gedanken spaceship. As to how it works, imagine that you're a circle of light. When you move fast one point on the perimeter of that circle traces out a helical path. When you then look at all points and integrate, the circle is "smeared out" into a cylinder. You are this cylinder, but you don't see yourself as such. You still see yourself as a circle. There's a scale-change here, you see everything else as length-contracted, because you're smeared out. So if I'm another circle, I look flattened. And of course you can assert that it's me moving not you. Then it's me who's smeared out, and it's you who looks flattened to me. Symmetry.

[James S Saint]

Don't feed the troll, James. He's just trying to spoil the thread and deter readers and contributors.

Yeah, I know. I had him on ignore, but even bratty kids say something relevant on extremely rare occasions, so on this new thread, I gave him a chance (again). But guess what.

The length contraction isn't as bad as you think. It's an observer effect rather than something real - we know this because a star a billion miles away doesn't flatten to a disc just because you accelerated your gedanken spaceship. As to how it works, imagine that you're a circle of light. When you move fast one point on the perimeter of that circle traces out a helical path. When you then look at all points and integrate, the circle is "smeared out" into a cylinder. You are this cylinder, but you don't see yourself as such. You still see yourself as a circle. There's a scale-change here, you see everything else as length-contracted, because you're smeared out. So if I'm another circle, I look flattened. And of course you can assert that it's me moving not you. Then it's me who's smeared out, and it's you who looks flattened to me. Symmetry.

Well to sane people, that is obviously true. But the Lorentz equations used to form the Loedel diagrams are taken as "reality". Lorentz presumes a "real" velocity and a time dilation (which is real) thus an relative unreal length.

A transverse spin counter, especially optic, requires that either the time dilation be corrected so as to match "reality" and leave the lengths alone, or we have to accept "relativity of count". Pick your poison. GPS systems correct for time dilation by tracking accelerations (and thus do not use length dilation nor Lorentz).