0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 08/01/2016 17:01:29if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.
if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,
Quote from: GoC on 08/01/2016 22:12:20Quote from: Thebox on 08/01/2016 17:01:29if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.What? sorry after your first sentence it gets rather gibberish and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Windows , mirrors in the universe is starting to sound harry potter.
GoC,Again I suggest that you watch some videos which explain special relativity. There are plenty of good ones on YouTube. Watch out, though; some people are good at making videos about stuff they don't understand. Lecture 3 Simultaneity and Causality explains it pretty clearly. If you still don't get it, watch another video and another....
Quote from: Kryptid on 24/12/2018 20:35:46Quote from: mad aetherist on 24/12/2018 19:25:57This might not be a new theory but it should win a 2018 award for THREAD MOST LIKELY TO MAKE YOUR HEAD EXPLODE. It looks innocuous, then it becomes apparent that it aint as simple as it looks, & then your head explodes. Physical contortions can injure your neck, & attempting 3-D mental contortions can injure your brain.Phractality -- Do we see the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- more complex than it looks.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65308.0I don't see why. It's easy to understand why we see the Sun as it was 8.3 minutes ago and relativity isn't even needed to explain it.I found it difficult to visualize the moving (orbiting) plus spinning stuff. Plus i took it to the next level. I will post on that thread to explain.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 24/12/2018 19:25:57This might not be a new theory but it should win a 2018 award for THREAD MOST LIKELY TO MAKE YOUR HEAD EXPLODE. It looks innocuous, then it becomes apparent that it aint as simple as it looks, & then your head explodes. Physical contortions can injure your neck, & attempting 3-D mental contortions can injure your brain.Phractality -- Do we see the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- more complex than it looks.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65308.0I don't see why. It's easy to understand why we see the Sun as it was 8.3 minutes ago and relativity isn't even needed to explain it.
This might not be a new theory but it should win a 2018 award for THREAD MOST LIKELY TO MAKE YOUR HEAD EXPLODE. It looks innocuous, then it becomes apparent that it aint as simple as it looks, & then your head explodes. Physical contortions can injure your neck, & attempting 3-D mental contortions can injure your brain.Phractality -- Do we see the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- more complex than it looks.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65308.0
Photoreceptors in the eye detect waves of a certain frequency range. How waves are transferred through space through is unknown but mass is required to create the waves. If mass is energy than photon virtual particles with a tail. If energy (dark mass energy) is the source of the transfer than it is a wave range of particles where the particles stay but continue the ripple through space. Both would be energy transfer.Either way light cannot be created without mass. Even virtual photons would lose mass from the proton which we do not measure so which is more likely?
We only live in the present. All of us no matter your clock speed. The present is where we live and when you view an image it was from the past. No one lives in the future since life is always in the present. Time is motion and motion is always the present.
I'm sure you've all had this experience: You hear a high-flying jet overhead; you look up in the direction from which the sound is coming. You don't see the jet there; instead, you see it maybe 30° to 45° ahead of where the sound is coming from.If the jet is flying in a circle with you at its center, you still hear it coming from its "retarded position", 30° to 45° behind where you see it. I'm not sure if that's exactly the case. Can that be proven? Try simplifying the problem by assuming the speed of sound is the same everywhere, regardless of altitude, and there is no wind. Let's say that jet passes 10 km directly above us; the sound takes 30 seconds to reach us. To simplify the problem, let's say the speed of light is infinite, so we see the jet exactly where it is now, as opposed to where it was when the sound we hear was emitted. (This is analogous to the assumption that the speed of gravity is infinite, compared to the speed of light.)
A though experiment:[In round numbers] Your ultra-quiet maglev train is eastbound in a straight line at 33 m/s; sound travels 1 km in 3 sec. Kids at ground zero, one km north of the track, are setting off M80 fireworks at one second intervals. Do you hear the bangs coming from the direction where you now see ground zero, from the direction where ground zero is, or some other direction?
Now, let's switch tracks; the new track is circular, centered on ground zero, with a radius of 1 km. I think the sound would seem to come from approximately (or exactly) the direction where we see ground zero. What say you? Anyone bold enough to present a proof?
What makes sunlight behave different rules? Or does it? A bit of philosophizing: The question of where the Sun IS NOW is an existential question. Can we really know where something has gone to since it emitted the signal that we are now perceiving? "IS NOW" is merely a snapshot of a model that we have conceived to make sense of what we perceive.
Quote from: alancalverd on 23/12/2015 20:51:03Not possible. What you see is light that emanated from the sun about 8 minutes ago, so by the time you see it, the earth will have revolved about 2 degrees from where it was when the light left the sun. So when the sun appears to be overhead London, it is actually overhead Gloucester.Not possible, or a sniper would always miss the target.
Not possible. What you see is light that emanated from the sun about 8 minutes ago, so by the time you see it, the earth will have revolved about 2 degrees from where it was when the light left the sun. So when the sun appears to be overhead London, it is actually overhead Gloucester.
This subject is covered in Travelling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves, Kennefick 2006, with reference to a 1909 paper by Einstein and Ritz. The illustrations are on pp 162, 163. Last I checked, that link was a free PDF download of the 500-page book. It looks to me like they are saying the spherical shells of light remain centered on the source in all inertial reference frames, even if the relative motion follows a straight line, rather an a circular orbit.
For years, I've accepted Tom Van Flandern's proof, and others like it, that gravity is billions of times faster than light. That proof is based on the claim that we see the sun where it was, not where it is. I am now having second thoughts.
they merely show that GWs propagate at c.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/01/2019 01:32:06 they merely show that GWs propagate at c.I thought you didn't believe in gravitational waves?
Of course the Sun is where it was 8 minutes ago, in Solar coordinates. I'm referring to the direction relative to the stars, which goes thru 360° degrees in a year. In 8.3 minutes, the direction of the Sun from Earth changes by .0057°. So do we see the light coming from .0057° east of its current location? If we were moving in a straight line past the Sun, I believe that would be the case.
I have read that a term in general relativity almost exactly cancels the direction change of the light, as if the centers of successive light pulses follow the source. The direction where we see an expanding spherical shell of light is perpendicular to the surface of the shell as it passes us. If we were in a circular orbit, I think the change in our direction, relative to the stars, would put the Sun's image back where the Sun is. I wonder if this analogy corresponds to the mysterious term in GR.
Our orbit is elliptical, and if I'm right, the angle between where we see the Sun and where it is ought to go thru an annual cycle. Concentric light spheres spreading from the Sun are always tangent to a circular orbit, but only tangent to an elliptical orbit at aphelion and perihelion.
If I now discard the idea that gravity is billions of times faster than light, there will need to be some changes in my model. I still think gravity is faster than light, but I'll have to look for a different proof and a different estimate of cg/cl.
Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines.
I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target.
After the discovery of a finite light speed in the 1600's, all observations became historical. [Romer]
Quote#49.I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target.If the plane has a velocity tangent to the circle, so does the cannonball!
#49.I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target.
Einsteinists have made a mess of three speeds, the speed of light (constant they say), the speed of gravity (infinite they say), & the speed of GWs (c they say).The speed of light is indeed constant, it is c in the aether. But Einstein "discovered" a null result in the non-null MMX, & Einstein said that the SOL is not constant it is constant in the sense that it appears constant (for all observers). In other words Einstein said that there is no such thing as an intrinsic SOL, but u dont see Einsteinians putting it that way, it would look too silly even by their standards.In a way Einstein was correct, we do nearnuff see the SOL as being isotropic. This is because everything we see is an illusion. This is because everything contracts in one direction (dimension) due to the aetherwind as per the Lorentzian equation for gamma (ie due to LLC). And because all ticking is affected by LLC. Our eyes & metre-rods & clocks are also affected hencely the perceived SOL etc is nearnuff constant (but not exactly),& the contracted shape of objects is nearnuff not visible, due to an optical illusion.