Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Centra on 14/01/2022 15:39:32

Title: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 14/01/2022 15:39:32
Here is my new and original theory, called The Illusion of Velocity Theory. One facet of the theory is that light in one inertial frame of reference cannot have true velocity in another inertial frame of reference in relative motion to it unless the source is located in one and the receptor in the other. The perception that light has velocity in the inertial frame of an observer if both the source and receptor are in another inertial frame which is in motion relative to it is an illusion, thus, the title "The Illusion of Velocity Theory". If the source is in one frame and the receptor in another in motion relative to it, velocity can only be measured if the person measuring it knows the distance and time between the two, which is rarely the case, since those parameters would be constantly changing and the observer would need to be in contact with observers in the other frame to have the information required to define the parameters, so generally any perception of velocity of light, or anything else, in one frame from another in relative motion to it is illusory.

This postulate, or recognition of objective fact, happens to invalidate most, if not all, of Einstein's thought experiments involving inertial frames in motion relative to each other, because he doesn't appear to have taken those objective facts into account, they all seem to involve the perception of the velocity of light in one inertial frame from the viewpoint of another inertial frame which is in motion relative to it, as if the velocity exists in both frames, even though the source, receptor, and all parameters of velocity are located in only one of the two frames.

First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance and time. Obviously I couldn't measure the velocity of a baseball being thrown from a pitcher to a catcher on a ball field from a moving car. How would I do that? I could obviously only do it on the ball field.

A similar situation occurs when I try to measure the velocity of light from a laser to a target, both being mounted on posts on the ground a certain distance apart, from a rocket traveling past them at, let's say, 150,000 km/s, for instance. Neither the laser nor the target are on the moving rocket so they do not have a particular velocity in the inertial frame of the rocket. Were I to make a rough estimate of the velocity of the laser beam, based merely on visual observation, I might think that it was moving at a velocity of only 150,000 km/s, because I and the rocket were moving at 150,000 km/s in the same direction. I might make the mistake of subtracting the velocity of the beam from my own velocity. That would be an example of "the illusion of velocity".

If the rocket were traveling in a direction opposite to the direction of the laser beam, I might make the mistake of adding my own velocity to that of the laser beam, concluding that its velocity was 450,000 km/s. That would be another example of "the illusion of velocity".

The laser beam actually had no particular velocity relative to me or the rocket, because it neither originated nor terminated in the rocket, and traveled no distance therein over any period of time therein, therefore it had no velocity in the rocket which could be measured in any way, it was an "illusion of velocity", if you will.

That, my friends, is the Illusion of Velocity Theory, accept it as valid or not, as you choose. It is my original theory, much like Special Relativity was Einstein's original theory, and this forum states that members are free to post their own original theories here, which would be appropriate to a forum section entitled "New Theories". If you find a logical fallacy in the Illusion of Velocity Theory, feel free to describe it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 14/01/2022 16:05:06
First I will give my definition of "velocity": the distance a thing travels in a certain time in a certain inertial frame. Obviously I couldn't measure the velocity of a baseball being thrown from a pitcher to a catcher on a ball field from a moving car. How would I do that? I could obviously only do it on the ball field.
Not a good start...  What you have described is speed, not velocity.  Velocity has direction too.
The speed can easily be measured from either frame, they just won't be the same.
A similar situation occurs when I try to measure the velocity of light from a laser to a target, both being mounted on posts on the ground a certain distance apart, from a rocket traveling past them at, let's say, 150,000 km/s, for instance. Neither the laser nor the target are on the moving rocket so they do not have a particular velocity in the inertial frame of the rocket. Were I to make a rough estimate of the velocity of the laser beam, based merely on visual observation, I might think that it was moving at a velocity of only 150,000 km/s, because I and the rocket were moving at 150,000 km/s in the same direction. I might make the mistake of subtracting the velocity of the beam from my own velocity. That would be an example of "the illusion of velocity".

If the rocket were traveling in a direction opposite to the direction of the laser beam, I might make the mistake of adding my own velocity to that of the laser beam, concluding that its velocity was 450,000 km/s. That would be another example of "the illusion of velocity".

The laser beam actually had no particular velocity relative to me or the rocket, because it neither originated nor terminated in the rocket, and traveled no distance therein over any period of time therein, therefore it had no velocity in the rocket which could be measured in any way, it was an "illusion of velocity", if you will.
There is no illusion, the speed of the light will be 'c' from all frames.  So sadly you are a relativity denier.  What a waste of time.

If you want to define a new term for:  "the distance a thing travels in a certain time in a certain inertial frame" that is fine, but don't use the term 'velocity'.  The term velocity has a specific meeting in physics so you need to make a new term for your idea.  In normal physics we would just use the term speed and specify which frame the speed is being measured in.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 14/01/2022 16:47:09
To further expound on the Illusion of Velocity Theory, one might make the naive assumption that the illusory perception of light moving faster or slower than 300,00 km/s should require some kind of manipulation of, say, time and/or distance in one or the other inertial frames of reference. For instance, in the case of a rocket moving along a path horizontal to an observer in another inertial frame of reference, they might reach the conclusion that a laser beam fired from the trailing end of said rocket to the leading end thereof while the rocket was traveling at a velocity of, say, 150.000 km/s, relative to that observer's inertial frame of reference, would mean that some kind of adjustment had to be made in order for the beam not to seem to the observer, using a flawed conception of velocity, to be moving at 450,000 km/s in his inertial frame of reference.

Obviously, no such adjustments would be required because that scenario was a classic example of "the illusion of velocity". The beam had not in reality had a velocity of 450,000 km/s, because the velocity of the beam could not even be measured by the observer because the necessary parameters to determine velocity did not exist in his inertial frame of reference.

A naive person might even go so far as to formulate equations to try to make the velocity of the beam in the rocket's inertial frame of reference appear to have a velocity of 300,000 km/s in the observer's inertial frame of reference. Such an exercise would of course be folly, for the simple reason that the beam could not have a velocity in the observer's frame regardless of any kind of time/length/distance manipulations. The laser beam never did have velocity in the observer's frame, and it never could have velocity in the observer's frame, because no parameters of velocity were ever present in the observer's frame, so the manipulations were completely unnecessary and pointless, a "waste of time", one might say. Such are the consequences of "the Illusion of Velocity".
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 14/01/2022 18:31:04
To further expound on the Illusion of Velocity Theory, one might make the naive assumption that the illusory perception of light moving faster or slower than 300,00 km/s should require some kind of manipulation of, say, time and/or distance in one or the other inertial frames of reference.
I see, you are not here it engage in a discussion you are just here to stand on your soap box and make unsubstantiated claims.  Well have fun, I guess....
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 14/01/2022 19:27:43
To further expound on the Illusion of Velocity Theory, one might make the naive assumption that the illusory perception of light moving faster or slower than 300,00 km/s should require some kind of manipulation of, say, time and/or distance in one or the other inertial frames of reference.
I see, you are not here it engage in a discussion you are just here to stand on your soap box and make unsubstantiated claims.  Well have fun, I guess....
You haven't given me anything to discuss with you yet. You said something about me describing speed and not velocity, or something like that, I disagree. Then you said of my theory "what a waste of time". I don't see how that would be considered part of a discussion. What do you expect me to say as my side of a discussion when your side was a crude insult?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Eternal Student on 14/01/2022 19:32:06
Hi.

I've scanned through the first few posts.

It seems that the essence of your (Centra) idea is that if something isn't in the rocket and it doesn't start or terminate in the rocket then it has no quantity that you can call velocity relative to the rocket.
That's fine, it can have something else, or nothing or whatever.

The main thing is that you are just categorising everything or restricting everything to very specific situations.  Your velocites are only defined when the thing is in the rocket, for example.   There is whole different class of quantities that are velcoties for things outside the rocket.   The two classes of velocities are just different, you can't mix the two and any attempt to measure one (let's say the outside velocities) while you are inside the rocket fails and you just have an illusion of a velocity that the thing would have had if it had been inside the rocket.

Potentially you could develop a theory like this.  However let's just pause for a moment and ask some questions:
1.  Why would you do this?
2.  Would it be useful?

We could categorize everything in science and have different descriptions for everything:   For example, instead of building theories that suggest wood behaves like a collection of atoms in a certain configuration,  we can just say - wood behaves like wood.  Similarly brick is brick and behaves like brick.  We can be even more specific:   Oak is different to just any old piece of wood...   Oak is Oak and behaves like Oak.   We can keep going,   this splinter of Oak is this splinter and behaves like this splinter      etc.  etc.
Ultimately we can (or can try to) list all the things that exist in the universe and all the properties that each thing has.   What we've got is a complete description of everything in the universe, all of its properties and all of its behaviours.  It's just that it isn't all that useful for human beings.   A complete list of everything and its properties is not as useful as a small number of simple models.

It has been useful to have an idea of velocity that applies to things in the rocket and also outside of the rocket and special relativity has been a reasonable method to combine velocities (we've got an addition formula for relativistic velocities etc).  So why would you want to separate the velocities into different classes like you are suggesting?

Would it be useful?
In the case of your theory, somehere and at some time people will want to consider how the movement of things outside the rocket might interact or influence things that are inside the rocket.  So sooner or later there needs to be some way of fittiing together velocities for things outside the rocket with velocities inside the rocket, or some method of determining how, why or if   stuff out there affects suff in here.    That cross-over might very well end up looking a lot like the velocity addition formula of special relativity.  If that is what you have in mind then all you will have done is change some vocabulary (the underlying results will remain the same).
Otherwise, if you are just going to avoid discussing or developing any ideas of how velocities out there might compare, influence or interact with things in the rocket,   then you've got to question if your theory would be useful.

However, on the face of it, you can consider the velocities of everything outside the rocket to be a completely different type of thing to velocities inside the rocket if you want.  It seems harmless but just not useful.

It might also interest you (Centra) to know that your idea isn't silly.  It has a lot in common with something that has already been done.  However, by the same token, there is no need to re-invent the wheel and it would be worth looking at what has already been done first.
In General Relativity there can be an extremely complicated non-Euclidean geometry in space.    Now we can always identify a velocity for an object in space at any position.   However, we cannot easily translate that into a velocity that the object would have if it was just picked up and put somewhere else.   There is an entire procedure and a chapter in most textbooks that discuss the ideas we require to do something called the parallel transport of a vector through curved space.   I'm going to paraphrase this:  An object can have a velocity that describes motion in a particular direction (let's say along the x-axis) but space is so distorted (non-Euclidean) that no x-axis direction can be identified at some other point in the space.  So no object can move in the x-axis direction at that other point in space, that direction simply does not exist there.   So in General relativity, velocities are vectors that are tied down to the position in space where the object is located.  Only in certain geometries (for example in flat space) can you directly compare (add and subtract) velocities that belong to objects from different locations in the manifold.
Anyway, it's not exactly the same as the ideas you are presenting but you can see that there is a massive overlap.  Someone has already considered the possibility that velocities are tied down to the observers location and you cannot reliably measure the velocity of a more distant object and express that as a vector that exists at the observers location.

This post is already too long.  I'm just hoping that you (Centra) will recognise that your ideas aren't completely silly, they're OK and could quite possibly be developed into a good theory.  However, it's not useful and something like this has already been done.  It's always worth looking to see what has already been done before trying to present a new theory and it is always worth asking if the new theory will actually be useful.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 14/01/2022 20:55:30
I'm just hoping that you (Centra) will recognise that your ideas aren't completely silly, they're OK and could quite possibly be developed into a good theory.  However, it's not useful and something like this has already been done.  It's always worth looking to see what has already been done before trying to present a new theory and it is always worth asking if the new theory will actually be useful.

Best Wishes.

I don't expect my theory to be useful for anything, it's just for contemplating how things work, there's no commercial application, it's simply my way to look at situations like those that I've seen in Einstein thought experiments. He called his view a theory so I call my alternative view of similar situations a theory.

One way to look at it is that if light has a constant velocity which is independent of the emitter's motion then couldn't you use that to determine whether or not you were in uniform motion in a straight line, which is supposed to be impossible? Say you fire a light beam and it has to stay at a certain velocity even though you and the emitter move forward in the same direction, essentially catching up with it to some slight degree, couldn't you just have a detector at a certain constant distance in front of the emitter and see how much longer it takes for the light to reach the detector than the constant velocity of light would take in a true stationary reference frame, if that existed? Wouldn't it take longer for the light to reach the detector the faster your motion was, because the detector is getting farther ahead of it than it was when the light was emitted, making the light have to try to catch up with it, making its path longer than the normal distance between the emitter and detector when stationary? In reality, we know that no matter how much you accelerate a rocket, for instance, once you stop accelerating and are in a uniform motion at the greater velocity than when you started accelerating, it still takes exactly the same amount of time for a light beam to travel between two points in that same direction as before you accelerated.

That proves that in a frame which is in uniform motion, light behaves exactly the same as if the frame was considered stationary, therefore, isn't it logical that if you view that rocket from, say, the ground, that it would look exactly the same as if it were stationary? You wouldn't see two beams which were fired in opposite directions at the same time with one fire button looking like they were fired at two different times, or one appearing to travel faster or slower than the other. Isn't it logical that you should not be able to tell the difference between whether or not it was moving or stationary relative to your frame by the appearance of the two beams?

Thanks for saying "best wishes" at the end of your post, that was nice of you, best wishes to you as well, Eternal Student.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 15/01/2022 07:01:02
A theory makes predictions, and lacking the mathematics, this presumably seems to make no different predictions as Newton's falsified model. Lacking those predictions, it isn't a theory, just a soapbox blog.

No, it's am Illusion of Velocity Theory forum thread, you just misinterpret it as something else, but it's an "illusion". You not believing that my theory is a theory does not make it a non-theory. Here's the definition: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." My theory intends to explain why people may perceive their observation of light travel to be at a greater velocity than it actually is. It is based on the general principles of measuring velocity and how they can be misinterpreted. I also don't know what you're talking about in regard to a "soapbox". Apparently you're more familiar with soapboxes than I am.

Here's my prediction, I predict that a person in one frame will misinterpret a light beam moving horizontally along a path in front of them as part of another frame which is in relative motion to his as having a velocity in his own frame when, in reality, it doesn't. That velocity can be referred to as an "illusion of velocity".

Here's the real velocity of light, not the time it takes to travel in a straight line between two points, but the time it takes in a series of straight lines at angles to each other to circumscribe a certain area. This is confirmed by the "Sagnac effect". What I mean is that if you fire a light beam at a mirror which is angled at 120 degrees to the beam, and then have it reflect off another mirror the same distance from the first one as the first mirror was from the light source at 120 again and then at the same distance from that mirror you place a light detector, the perceived velocity of the light beam will be based not on the total length of the path but on the area contained within that half hexagon shape. If you  add another such mirror you will have added another 120 degree angle to the light path, increasing the total area contained by 33%, and so on until a full hexagonal path is formed. Every time you added another section to the hexagon you increased the area circumscribed by the light beam at the same rate as you increased the length of the path.

Now if you arranged numerous mirrors in such a way that the path zig-zagged in numerous directions within the same hexagonal shape, the total area circumscribed still could not total more than that of the hexagon, in fact it would be less, because in order to stay within the hexagon some corners would have to be cut, otherwise the shape would be the exact same hexagon, but the total length of the path would be longer. Would the time taken for the light to complete its course back to its source in a loop be more or less than the time it took in the hexagon shaped path? If it was not subjected to rotation, presumably yes, but what about if the whole thing was rotated? Which path would show the greatest shift? Maybe the shorter path of the hexagon with its greater circumscribed area, which seems contradictory.

If you say the correct answer is more then you may be contradicting the actual experimental results of the Sagnac effect. At least that's my interpretation based on what I've read about the Sagnac effect. They didn't actually do the thought experiment I just described but they do say that the results are based on the total area that the light path contained, the more area, the greater the offset between to opposite direction beams when the apparatus is rotated. It didn't say the greater the length of the light path, just the greater the area contained within the loop, which did not need to be circular, any random shape will work, from my understanding of it, which could very well be wrong. I'm not trying to state definitively how the Sagnac effect works, just my current understanding of it, which is very limited, but my current understanding of it leads me to believe that the result I predicted would be the real result if the experiment were carried out. It seems that increasing the area has more effect than increasing the path length, which you could easily do by making it more convoluted.

So this may be another form of illusion of velocity, believing that the velocity of light is based on its path length rather than the area that its path circumscribes. It may very well be the same as with planetary orbit. With an elliptical orbit, the velocity of the planet increases at certain parts of the ellipse and reduces at other parts, but it takes the same amount of time to cover the same area contained within that orbital section with the sun as the central point of that area, or maybe the center of the total area within the ellipse, I'm not sure at the moment, but I saw a video of an old black and white science education film and it said that the speed was based on the area, I'll have to try to find it again. But point being, from my current understanding, it's not based on the length of the path section between the two lines. For the Sagnac effect to work as it does, wouldn't the velocity of light have to change along its path in exactly the same manner as the planet's velocity changed in its path? Maybe I'm wrong but maybe I'm right, hard to say at the moment. Granted the Sagnac effect is probably not exactly the same as the orbit effect I described, because there's no perceived force acting on the light beam as with a planet in orbit, but it may be something along similar lines.

In a straight path the velocity apparently would be constant, because it's not circumscribing an area, or the area is unlimited, but what if the path bounces in such a way that it does circumscribe an area? Would that effect the velocity along the path? You wouldn't think, being just a series of straight paths, I don't know, I think it's a possibility that should be considered though. It would think would be the same UNTIL you subjected the whole thing to rotation, so how is rotation affecting the velocity of light in that same series of straight paths? What is rotating it doing to make the light behave differently from when the apparatus is not rotated? The path is exactly the same, light can't be affected by centrifugal force, so what's actually happening? The mystery is why can you measure rotational motion with light using a series of straight paths at angles to each other, but you can't measure the motion of the same series of straight paths connected together without any angles? It doesn't even have to be sudden rotation, which would involve acceleration, you can use a Sagnac apparatus to measure the rotation of the earth itself, which is obviously constant.

Writing this part later, I did find the old film about orbit being related to area. If you view this video starting at 11:20 you'll see what I was referring to.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Colin2B on 15/01/2022 08:59:16
I'm sure at the moment, but I saw a video of an old black and white science education film and it said that the speed was based on the area, I'll have to try to find it again.
You are probably thinking of Kepler’s 2nd law “A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time”
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 15/01/2022 12:00:08
You are probably thinking of Kepler’s 2nd law “A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time”
Thanks for that, I didn't know it had a name. But how else could you explain the light beam return times being dependent on the total area rather than the total path length? At least that's my current understanding of it, the subject is rather complicated.

What if you had separate paths for the two beams, two different loops, and they both had equal area but different lengths? If, when rotated, the difference in return times were the same as when both paths were equal length and the area the same, that would mean that the velocity of light was faster in the longer path than the shorter path would it not? It would have sped up to cover the same area using a longer path. I don't know if that's what would actually happen, someone would have to conduct the experiment.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 15/01/2022 15:12:49
As a followup to the line of thought in my previous post, I found an article where they used a conveyor type fiber optic apparatus and found that the Sagnac effect didn't depend on the area after all, just the length of the path and the speed of movement, and that it was the same for uniform motion as for rotational, which was the purpose for using a conveyor type arrangement having straight paths. By varying only the lengths of the straight parts they were able to show that the same effect occurred in non-rotating paths, the results changing with different lengths of those straight paths.

What this means in regard to the velocity of light I'm not sure. It appears that light velocity may not be independent of the motion of the source and detector, which were in motion with the fiber, unlike in experiments such as Fizeau and Michelson-Morley, where they were stationary. Here are two quotes from the article, the second one being the conclusion:

Quote
While the phase shift in the Sagnac effect is often expressed using the enclosed area as a factor, our results indicate that the length and speed of the moving fiber are the fundamental factors, rather than the enclosed area...

The travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform. In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c2.

Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference
between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber

Ruyong Wang, Zi Zhengb, Aiping Yaob, Dean Langley
.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 15/01/2022 18:46:53
Take your 300,000 km object, moving along its length as you describe.  There is one observer at one end with both an emitter and detector, and just a mirror at the other end. No different clocks to worry about synchronizing. If the object (rocket) is stationary, it takes light one second to go each way, so a 2-second round trip.  If it is moving at half light speed, it takes 2 seconds to get to the mirror and 2/3 seconds to get back for an elapsed time of not 2, but 2.66 seconds. By noting the different time it takes for light to make the round trip, one can detect absolute motion.
So you claim that, in an inertial frame in uniform motion, it's possible to detect that you're moving? Interesting, since it contradicts Einstein's postulates and I took you for a member of the Einstein Fan Club, but I guess not.
But you gave it one in your description above, so you contradict yourself. You said it was 150,000 one way and 450,000 the other way.
Looks to me like I said:
Quote
"based merely on visual observation, I might think that it was moving at a velocity of only 150,000 km/s
and
Quote
I might make the mistake of adding my own velocity to that of the laser beam, concluding that its velocity was 450,000 km/s.
That does not seem to me to be the same as:
You said it was 150,000 one way and 450,000 the other way.

I guess I shouldn't be too hard on you though, you seem like an alright guy compared to some I've dealt with in forums. You're making a sincere effort anyway.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 19:32:19
I don't expect my theory to be useful for anything
It's not a theory, but you are right about it not being useful.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 15/01/2022 21:37:09
It's not a theory, but you are right about it not being useful.
Good of you to acknowledge I was right. But didn't you see the word "theory" in the title? That's your clue that it's a theory. You sound like you just might be a victim of the illusion of velocity. Came here for treatment huh? Okay, lay down on the coach. Now when did you first think you saw some velocity? Tell me all about it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 07:24:44
Something occurred to me about the article I quoted earlier.
Quote
While the phase shift in the Sagnac effect is often expressed using the enclosed area as a factor, our results indicate that the length and speed of the moving fiber are the fundamental factors, rather than the enclosed area...

The travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform. In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c2.

Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference
between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber

Ruyong Wang, Zi Zhengb, Aiping Yaob, Dean Langley

Why would the length of the fiber matter? Both beams would still be traveling equal distances regardless of the length of the fiber, so how could the length make the fringe shift differ? I could see the contained area possibly making a difference but how could the length? The article said the area didn't make a difference but the length did. Wouldn't that indicate a drag/counter-drag effect by the fiber material on the light?

It also occurred to me that it's not really a case of uniform motion in a straight line just because parts of the fiber are straight, they're still parts of a rotating fiber because they're connected to the parts that go around the rotors.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 09:29:01
But didn't you see the word "theory" in the title?
Good point.
"The Illusion of Velocity Theory"
You do not have a theory.
That's your clue that it's a theory.
No.
It is proof that you do not know what the word means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

What you have is hogwash.

Okay, lay down on the coach.
LOL
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 10:45:38
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
Under that definition, Einstein's "theories" would not be theories. Case in point, the Sagnac effect, as was experimented with in the article "On a Fringe Movement Registered on a Platform in Uniform Motion (1942)", by A. Dufour and F. Prunier   J. de Physique. Radium 3 , 9 (1942) 153-162. In that article, Einstein's "theory" of Special Relativity was tested and found invalid. So do you now consider Special Relativity not to be a theory? You would have to, if you judge it by the definition you quoted. Does that mean that nobody can refer to it as a theory in this forum?

In that experiment, the actual observed fringe shift was 0.56 um, the predicted shift according to classical theory was 0.053 um and the prediction according to the relativistic theory was 0.005 um. The authors said of the results, later mentioning the attempted rationalizations of the contradiction by Paul Languevin, an Einstein fan, and also showing them invalid:
Quote
...that is to say a value that is approximately ten times smaller, according to this last theory than according to the preceding one. The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention with the classical theory and also with the result provided by this experiment.

Thus, the relativistic theory has not, in fact, been "repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method". There have been a few clearly flawed tests, but this non-flawed one clearly proved the "theory" fallacious, by a factor of 10, which, I presume, would be sufficient in any reasonable person's eyes to be conclusive.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 11:01:33
Further on the subject of the illusion of velocity, you'll find that in Einstein's thought experiments he always excludes the time taken for the light in the observed moving frame, containing the light and parameters of velocity associated with it, to travel from it to the observer's eyes in order for them to see it. That is ironic, considering that was the only velocity of light that involved the observer, whose eyes were the receptor of light whose source was in the moving frame. The velocity couldn't have been measured, without knowing the distance and time, but it did at least involve both frames. Einstein didn't examine, or construct equations relating to, that instance of actual velocity, instead, he tried to have us believe that the light that he did relate his comments and equations to had velocity in both frames, which it did not.

Thus, Einstein's "theory" of relativity was based an the illusion of velocity, rather than actual velocity. He tried to mathematically shoehorn real velocity in one frame into matching illusory velocity in another frame by manipulating time and length to suit his purposes. I'm afraid it's not scientifically acceptable to manipulate time and length at your whim to prop up a flawed theory.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 11:26:46
Under that definition, Einstein's "theories" would not be theories.
Einstein's works have been tested extensively, and found to be correct within the limits of experimental error.
They meet the definition as given in the wiki article.

Why say things like that?
Why be so obviously wrong?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 11:54:18
Not a good start...  What you have described is speed, not velocity.  Velocity has direction too.
The speed can easily be measured from either frame, they just won't be the same.
Actually you're correct, I defined velocity incorrectly, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have modified that par of the post to read "First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance and time.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 11:58:05
Under that definition, Einstein's "theories" would not be theories.
Einstein's works have been tested extensively, and found to be correct within the limits of experimental error.
They meet the definition as given in the wiki article.

Why say things like that?
Why be so obviously wrong?

I disagree, name the experiments. I just cited one that contradicted it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 12:05:29
I disagree, name the experiments. I just cited one that contradicted it.
Are you serious?
For a start, sat nav works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
So, essentially, you are disagreeing with anyone who ever studied the field.

I suspect the problem may be that you failed to understand this:

within the limits of experimental error.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 12:06:28
I have modified that par of the post to read "First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector.
Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 12:55:20
I have modified that par of the post to read "First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector.
Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 13:07:17
Are you serious?
For a start, sat nav works.
Yes, I'm quite serious. Sat nav are rotating around the earth, which is itself rotating around the sun, therefore, the Sagnac effect is involved. The fact that relativity is contradicted by the experimental results of the Sagnac effect shows that the satellites cannot possibly behave in accordance with the postulates of Special Relativity. Those portable cesium clocks are simply not highly accurate, compared to large ground based ones, and they're affected by the Sagnac effect, they have to be corrected. It's just coincidence that those factors happen to be capable of being shoehorned into the Special Relativity theory if you fudge the numbers enough. I'll look into the subject more.

I suspect the whole thing is like the Hafele-Keating experiment, with the planes flying around the earth. It was carried out poorly and the actual outcome can be explained by the Sagnac effect. Consider this, the planes were flying in opposite directions at roughly the same speed for the same distance based on the ground based clock, so shouldn't they both be equally different from the ground based clock? One was not moving at a faster rate relative to the ground based clock than the other. They were in the air, which moved with the rotating earth, so it's as if the earth was stationary from the standpoint of special relativity, so why were there different times on the two plane clocks? That experiment was based on the flawed viewpoint that the atmosphere doesn't move with the rotating earth, which it obviously does. For such an experiment to be valid, it would have to be satellites outside the atmosphere, not conventional airplanes. Since there is not a constant east to west wind of approximately 1000 mph at the altitude that those planes were, the whole premise was invalid

I also don't believe any of that other stuff on Wikipeda really confirms SR, because how could it when the Sagnac experiment conclusively disproved it? Scientists don't get funding by challenging widely accepted theories, they get it by flubbing experiments to make it look like those theories are confirmed.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 13:44:02
Oh what's this here? Looks like GPS actually contradicts Special Relativity. So now I have cited two articles which state that the Sagnac effect contradicts Special Relativity, thus proving it invalid, this one quite modern. The Sagnac effect invalidates Special Relativity, simple statement of experimentally established fact.
Quote
Abstract – The implementation of GPS systems has allowed the understanding of important facts about the true meaning of time and simultaneity. In fact GPS has became a fundamental source for the understanding of clock behaviour and synchronization, through the considerations of the relativistic effects affecting it. Among these, a very important role is played by the Sagnac effect, influencing the clocks readings. The correct consideration of such effect is fundamental in every synchronization process where the receiver is moving with respect to the source. In this paper we show how GPS system demonstrates that the explanation of Sagnac effect given by the commonly accepted version of Special Theory of Relativity is not correct and the use of an alternative formulation based on Inertial Transformations must be used. This implies the adoption of a new synchronization procedure, the renounce to the relativity of simultaneity and a novel meaning of physical time.

The Sagnac effect in GPS, absolute simultaneity
and the new meaning of time

Luigi Maxmilian Caligiuri
Amrit Sorli2

And look how this other article states that the effects of gravity and time dilation aren't even a significant factor, if they even exist, so how does GPS prove they exist? Satellites don't move fast enough to show any significant time dilation effects, and if gravity affects time, it wouldn't even prove the other light related time dilation effects postulated in Special Relativity, could be two completely different things.
Quote
In an inertial frame, a network of self-consistently synchronized clocks can be established either by transmission of electromagnetic signals that propagate with the universally constant speed c (this is called Einstein synchronization), or by slow transport of portable atomic clocks. On the other hand it is well-known[3] that in a rotating reference frame, the Sagnac effect prevents a network of self-consistently synchronized clocks from being established by such processes. This is a significant issue in using timing signals to determine position in the GPS. The Sagnac effect can amount to hundreds of nanoseconds; a timing error of one nanosecond can lead to a navigational error of 30 cm.

To account for the Sagnac effect, a hypothetical non-rotating reference frame is introduced. Time in this so-called Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) Frame is adopted as the basis for GPS time; this is discussed in Section 2. Of course the earth’s mass encompasses the origin of the ECI frame and has significant gravitational effects. To an extremely good approximation in the GPS, however, gravitational effects can be simply added to other effects arising from special relativity. In this article gravitational effects will not be considered. Even time dilation, which is an effect of second order in the small parameter v/c, where v is the velocity of some clock, will be neglected. I shall confine this discussion to effects which are of first order (linear) in velocities. The Sagnac effect is such an effect.

THE SAGNAC EFFECT
IN THE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Neil Ashby
Department of Physics, UCB 390.
Boulder, CO 80309-0390 USA.
Quote

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 14:55:47
Those portable cesium clocks are simply not highly accurate,
Yes they are.
They are sufficiently accurate that they had to be set to run at the ""wrong" rate here on the ground so that they would run at the right rate when in orbit.
The extent to which the rate changes is exactly what was predicted by GR.
So, you seem to be denying reality here.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 14:58:12
I have modified that par of the post to read "First I will give my definition of velocity: the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector.
Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?
"The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Why couldn't you do that for yourself?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 15:24:04
Those portable cesium clocks are simply not highly accurate,
Yes they are.
They are sufficiently accurate that they had to be set to run at the ""wrong" rate here on the ground so that they would run at the right rate when in orbit.
The extent to which the rate changes is exactly what was predicted by GR.
So, you seem to be denying reality here.
Okay, supposing the portable ones are accurate, the GPS clocks are not adjusted based on GR, it's based on the Sagnac effect, which is what causes noticeable desynchronization, see the articles I quoted. That very Sagnac effect actually contradicts Einstein's theories so obviously if the GPS clocks were adjusted based on GR they would still be off.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 15:34:23
the GPS clocks are not adjusted based on GR, it's based on the Sagnac effect
No.
There are three main contributions. The Sagnac effect is one of them.
The others are relativistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity

Shouldn't you have researched this before telling everyone that they were wrong?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 15:35:43
"The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Why couldn't you do that for yourself?
Because I didn't feel like it, that's why.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 15:37:55
That very Sagnac effect actually contradicts Einstein's theories
No.
"The Sagnac effect has stimulated a century long debate on its meaning and interpretation,[23][24][25] much of this debate being surprising since the effect is perfectly well understood in the context of special relativity."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#History
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 15:41:51
What do you think "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is that is different from " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?
That sentence does not parse in English.
Do you mean something like this?
"What How do you think "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is that is different from " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?"

Well, that's easy.
The quantification of something is he act of measuring it, not the thing itself.
And you have introduced the word "vector" for no reason.

Basically, you took the right definition, and made it wrong.

As I said;

Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 16:12:18

the GPS clocks are not adjusted based on GR, it's based on the Sagnac effect
No.
There are three main contributions. The Sagnac effect is one of them.
The others are relativistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity

Shouldn't you have researched this before telling everyone that they were wrong?
Shouldn't you stop using Wikipedia as a reliable reference?
Quote
The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.

GPS AND RELATIVITY: AN ENGINEERING OVERVIEW
Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti GPS Joint Program Office The Aerospace Corporation El Segundo, California 09245, USA
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 16:15:37
Shouldn't you stop using Wikipedia as a reliable reference?
No, Wiki is fine, because it cites references.
Speaking of references, you should try reading the one you cited.
Here's what it says.

GPS GR.JPG (132.28 kB . 623x800 - viewed 1038 times)
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 16:25:34
What do you think "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is that is different from " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?
You couldn't understand that? Good, I confounded you, haha.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 16:30:16
What do you think "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is that is different from " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?
You couldn't understand that? What do you think the following quote "rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time" is... are you with me so far? That is different from this quote " the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"? You seriously couldn't understand that? Wow.
Am I right in thinking that only one of us is a native speaker of English?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 16:32:56
the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?
Do you not understand that "vector" is not a parameter?
You seem to have put it in your definition, just to make it wrong.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 16:44:49
Speaking of references, you should try reading the one you cited.

Quote
At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second — their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.
To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.” Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,”

https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619 (https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619)
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 16:53:20
the quantification of motion based on the parameters of distance, time and vector"?
Do you not understand that "vector" is not a parameter?
You seem to have put it in your definition, just to make it wrong.
This time you're right, velocity actually is a vector, you got me that time. Yeah I put it in there just to make it wrong, to give you something to gripe about. Glad you kept bringing it up until I actually found out you had a valid point though, that did look pretty silly. I corrected it now.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 17:04:10
This time you're right,
And this time
And you have introduced the word "vector" for no reason.
And this time
Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?

But it took a few repetitions before you noticed you were making a fool of yourself about that.
I wonder how many it will take before you realise that the same is true of the whole of your post.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 17:05:59
OK
To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day.
GPS works because the engineers took relativity into account.

You just proved my point.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 17:09:37
This time you're right,
And this time
And you have introduced the word "vector" for no reason.
And this time
Did you realise that you changed it to something meaningless?

But it took a few repetitions before you noticed you were making a fool of yourself about that.
I wonder how many it will take before you realise that the same is true of the whole of your post.
Probably plenty. Just because I put a redundant word in doesn't make the whole thing wrong. The basis of my theory is that you can't have velocity in one frame just by seeing it in another and, therefore, an example is how Einstein's thought experiments wrongly identified something as velocity which was not.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 17:11:29
OK
To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day.
GPS works because the engineers took relativity into account.

You just proved my point.
I don't know, maybe in a way, but why didn't they have to keep adjusting it regularly? I'll have to look into it more anyway. BUT why was SR wrong about the Sagnac effect? That's still not resolved?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 17:28:15
Say we added a fixed amount energy to stationary object. It achieves a final known velocity. All  relative frames of references, to that original frame, will not be valid when doing an energy balance. Relative velocity may work for velocity, but energy is not relative, since it is part of a universal energy balance.
Interesting points. You can flip the frames as if the other is the one moving, but one of the frames actually put energy into creating the motion and the other didn't. Does it make a difference in some way? I don't know, something to ponder.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 17:29:33
BUT why was SR wrong about the Sagnac effect? That's still not resolved?
Because SR only covers "special " cases where there's no acceleration.
GR is more "general", and does cover it.
Were you not aware of that?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 17:30:14
Interesting points.
But wrong.
PP isn't good at science.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 17:49:40
BUT why was SR wrong about the Sagnac effect? That's still not resolved?
Because SR only covers "special " cases where there's no acceleration.
GR is more "general", and does cover it.
Were you not aware of that?
No, What do you think, I read everything in existence? I just started this physics theorizing thing recently because I watched some YouTube videos about Einstein thought experiments. I may just give up on it eventually, it's possible it's not actually valid. It was just something to put out there and see where it leads.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 17:53:24
Interesting points.
But wrong.
PP isn't good at science.
Maybe, but he's not offensive. I prefer people who are not good at science but non-offensive over people who are good at science but offensive any day. He's doing some creative thinking and not bothering anybody so why do you feel compelled to say that?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 19:28:24
Interesting points.
But wrong.
PP isn't good at science.
Maybe, but he's not offensive. I prefer people who are not good at science but non-offensive over people who are good at science but offensive any day. He's doing some creative thinking and not bothering anybody so why do you feel compelled to say that?
This is a science site. Turning up and posting tosh is offensive.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 16/01/2022 20:58:09
Interesting points.
But wrong.
PP isn't good at science.
Maybe, but he's not offensive. I prefer people who are not good at science but non-offensive over people who are good at science but offensive any day. He's doing some creative thinking and not bothering anybody so why do you feel compelled to say that?
This is a science site. Turning up and posting tosh is offensive.
Well it's true that it wouldn't matter about the energy used for the motion in regard to flipping the frame considered to be in motion, but I can see how a person might think it possibly could. It does indicate that he was doing some abstract thinking, it just didn't happen to take a path which is likely to be shown to be correct. It was unique though, I hadn't thought of anything like that before so it was worth reading.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2022 21:47:31
Energy was never conserved from one frame to another.
From the point of view of an ant on a cricket ball, it has practically no KE. But the batsman won't see it that way.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 17/01/2022 06:25:34
In regard to GPS, the satellites are not in uniform motion in a straight line, they are the same as being on the perimeter of a rotating disc of radius 26,578.1 km, which is earth radius plus altitude. As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity predictions, it's actually about 10x greater. So how could Special Relativity accurately apply to GPS clocks?

To obtain the straight line motion of a satellite relative to a particular point on the earth, like a ground station, you would have to connect a straight line from that station to a satellite and observe how the length of that line changes as the satellite orbits. It would be equivalent to the satellite starting directly above the ground station, or as close as it ever gets to directly above it in its path, then moving away from the ground station, until it gets on the exact opposite side of the earth from it, and then moving back toward it until it gets directly over it again. That's not the motion that is used in any of the calculations attributed to GPS in any article I've seen, they use the angular velocity around the center of the earth instead, which only works with the Sagnac equations, not the Special Relativity ones.

This shows that the whole thing is bogus. I suppose the reason it worked even though they used the completely wrong calculation is that, if Special Relativity is even valid, the effect is actually so slight that nobody would notice it anyway. How else could it work when I just explained how to find the actual straight line velocity from the ground station? That velocity also would not be uniform, but changing throughout the path, starting at zero, increasing and then decreasing to zero on the opposite side if the earth and then repeating the process in the other direction back to the ground station. Think about it yourself by mentally doing as I described, connecting the satellite to the ground station with a straight line, which is the only way to determine the straight line motion relative to it. To aid in picturing the motion, just consider yourself to be standing at the ground station and keeping your eyes focused on the satellite's position as it orbits, as if you could also see it through the earth, what would you see it doing relative to you? It would be like a paddle ball with you as the paddle and the satellite as the ball.

Actually, come to think of it, it wouldn't even be like Sagnac, because the station doesn't move with the satellites, it would be more like Michelson-Morley or something, don't know offhand what to liken it to. It would be Sagnac in regard to one satellite orbiting in the opposite direction of another satellite in roughly the same path, but otherwise I don't know. I also don't know if Sagnac even has any effect on clocks, atomic or regular.

I can describe one way that Sagnac would have an effect on two light clocks. If you had two arrangements of light source with light activated trigger of that light source on the back of it, and placed them both on a turntable in opposite directions, with the usual array of mirrors to direct the beam around, and used the triggering of the light blasts as the ticks of two clocks then one would obviously tick faster than the other. Would that mean time itself was passing at two different rates? Obviously not, the clocks are both on the same turntable which is in one time dimension, or zone, whatever term you want to use. This shows that light clocks can't dependably be used as reliable timekeepers in all possible configurations, because it wouldn't work in this particular one.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2022 08:34:41

In regard to GPS, the satellites are not in uniform motion in a straight line, they are the same as being on the perimeter of a rotating disc of radius 26,578.1 km, which is earth radius plus altitude. As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity
What do you think is the difference between special relativity and general relativity?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 17/01/2022 10:31:33
What do you think is the difference between special relativity and general relativity?
General involves gravity and Special doesn't. The gravitational time dilation is only one part of what people say is the effect on GPS clocks. Less gravity supposedly speeds them up slightly while their motion slows them down slightly, supposedly due to the postulates of Special Relativity. They make the mistake of thinking SR would apply directly to that orbital motion as if it were straight line uniform motion.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2022 11:01:08
They make the mistake of thinking SR would apply directly to that orbital motion
I think you are the only one making that mistake.
General involves gravity and Special doesn't.
Well, strictly, it's any acceleration, rather than specifically gravity but...
The thing is that you seem to realise that SR does not apply to an accelerated frame.
And then you say there is a problem because SR does not apply to a thing that is in orbit and, therefore accelerating.

GR deals with the Sagnac effect.
Why can't you?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 17/01/2022 11:15:38
They make the mistake of thinking SR would apply directly to that orbital motion
I think you are the only one making that mistake.
General involves gravity and Special doesn't.
Well, strictly, it's any acceleration, rather than specifically gravity but...
The thing is that you seem to realise that SR does not apply to an accelerated frame.
And then you say there is a problem because SR does not apply to a thing that is in orbit and, therefore accelerating.

GR deals with the Sagnac effect.
Why can't you?

From your favorite information source, Wikipedia:
Quote
According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered, non-rotating approximately inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed. Special relativity predicts that the frequency of the atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by a factor of {\displaystyle {\frac {v^{2}}{2c^{2}}}\approx 10^{-10}}\frac{v^{2}}{2c^{2}}\approx 10 ^{-10}, or result in a delay of about 7 μs/day, where the orbital velocity is v = 4 km/s, and c = the speed of light. This time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS.

The effect of gravitational frequency shift on the GPS due to general relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away. Applied to the GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10−10, or about 45.9 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is noticeable.

When combining the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day, a difference of 4.465 parts in 1010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2022 11:51:19
This time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS.
OK, that's good.
You now accept that GPS verifies relativity.
You asked for evidence to support it, and you now quote the bits of wiki that say that the GPS network is essentially proof that relativity works.

Do you recognise that, since relativity gives the right answers, your idea is either wrong (if it disagrees) or redundant (if it agrees)?

But it took a few repetitions before you noticed you were making a fool of yourself about that.
I wonder how many it will take before you realise that the same is true of the whole of your post.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 17/01/2022 12:09:31
This time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS.
OK, that's good.
You now accept that GPS verifies relativity.
You asked for evidence to support it, and you now quote the bits of wiki that say that the GPS network is essentially proof that relativity works.

Do you recognise that, since relativity gives the right answers, your idea is either wrong (if it disagrees) or redundant (if it agrees)?

But it took a few repetitions before you noticed you were making a fool of yourself about that.
I wonder how many it will take before you realise that the same is true of the whole of your post.
Fine, maybe Einstein was right, at least in some ways. I'm actually bored with the subject now anyway. Thanks for the discussion.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2022 12:51:45
I'm actually bored with the subject now anyway.
It's difficult to maintain interest once it's clear that you are completely wrong, isn't it?
Pity you didn't recognise it earlier.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 17/01/2022 17:05:09
I'm actually bored with the subject now anyway.
It's difficult to maintain interest once it's clear that you are completely wrong, isn't it?
Pity you didn't recognise it earlier.
Indeed it is, though I'm not entirely sure I was wrong, just at the moment I don't want to have to wade through a bunch more articles to try to refute you. I still stand by my theory as outlined in the first post, though with one slight modification, it only applies to frames separated by empty space. It wouldn't apply to frames which have physical contact with each other, like a train and a track. The train's motion is a result of direct contact with the tracks, so they're really just one frame technically, just like a person walking around at the train station is part of the train station frame. Two rockets in space, though, or a rocket and a space station, are two completely independent frames and the illusion of velocity can occur.

I suppose a case could be made that even objects separated by empty space are still connected by gravity, but at the scale of rockets, I doubt it would be a significant factor. On the scale of stars and planets, it probably would be. Depending on how far gravity extends, you could say that the entire universe is a single frame, which may have something to do with the constancy of light speed, if it's true. It's not aether that light speed would be tied to, it would be the mesh of gravity connecting all matter in the universe into a single macroframe. The solar system could easily be considered a single frame, and possibly the galaxy. You could consider, at least, the solar system to be interconnected rotating frames and the gravity mesh between them to be the "lab frame", in a way, .
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2022 17:26:03
I'm not entirely sure I was wrong
Ask around and see what you find out.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 12:25:40
I'm not entirely sure I was wrong
Ask around and see what you find out.
That does sound scientific, whatever the majority thinks must be right, just like when the majority thought the sun revolved around the earth.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2022 13:11:25
I'm not entirely sure I was wrong
Ask around and see what you find out.
That does sound scientific, whatever the majority thinks must be right, just like when the majority thought the sun revolved around the earth.
It is more likely that the majority is, at least nearly right, than that a minority of one, known to be "misguided " will be right.
Feel free to look for actual evidence.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 13:36:36
I'm not entirely sure I was wrong
Ask around and see what you find out.
That does sound scientific, whatever the majority thinks must be right, just like when the majority thought the sun revolved around the earth.
It is more likely that the majority is, at least nearly right, than that a minority of one, known to be "misguided " will be right.
Feel free to look for actual evidence.
It's a lot easier to agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago than to formulate new ones isn't it. Doesn't require any brains at all.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 18/01/2022 14:23:37
It's a lot easier to agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago than to formulate new ones isn't it. Doesn't require any brains at all
The theory of special relativity is over a century old.  Special relativity is based on other theories that are several hundred years old.  Physicist test these theories all the time and they would love to find a better theory.  It takes a lot of brains to simply understand and perform the math of these theories.  The reason these theories are accepted is because all test thrown at them have shown them to be correct.  I have a degree in Chemical Engineering and I have taken plenty of calculus and calculus based physics courses but I do not have the knowledge to do the math involved in General Relativity.
As you said:
"I just started this physics theorizing thing recently because I watched some YouTube videos about Einstein thought experiments."
So we can confidently say you ideas are wrong, and not even close.  But don't feel bad, if any of us here were challenged to come up with a new replacement for relativity we would also be wrong.
What you are doing is no different than reading a few articles and watching a few videos on medicine and then thinking you are ready to perform open heart surgery.
You cannot even do problems that a freshman physics student can do, you are not going to come up with an idea that thousands of PhD physicist have not been able to do.

If you are curious about aspects of physics ASK QUESTIONS, don't just make up stuff based on a lack of knowledge.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 14:34:27
If you are curious about aspects of physics ASK QUESTIONS, don't just make up stuff based on a lack of knowledge.
I can use Google, thanks, I don't need to ask people on forums to repeat what's easily found in Wikipedia. I just like to try to think of new ways of looking at things which are not the same as on Wikipedia. Ever hear the saying "question everything"?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2022 16:48:05
It's a lot easier to agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago than to formulate new ones isn't it. Doesn't require any brains at all.
You have not "formulated a new theory".
You have posted stuff that is plainly wrong because it does not agree with observation.
Part of the problem is that you write of 200 years of observations as choosing to
agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 18/01/2022 17:43:41
Ever hear the saying "question everything"?
Yep.  Ever hear the saying "listen to the experts"?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 17:52:25
Ever hear the saying "question everything"?
Yep.  Ever hear the saying "listen to the experts"?
No, that's a new one, I must admit.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 17:53:17
It's a lot easier to agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago than to formulate new ones isn't it. Doesn't require any brains at all.
You have not "formulated a new theory".
You have posted stuff that is plainly wrong because it does not agree with observation.
Part of the problem is that you write of 200 years of observations as choosing to
agree with other peoples' theories from decades ago
Oh I formulated a new theory alright, one which agrees with observation.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2022 17:54:40
I formulated a new theory alright
Where?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 18:26:59
I formulated a new theory alright
Where?
It's invisible, it's the invisible theory.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 18:52:22
The illusion of velocity. A person in a frame of reference on a space station measures the velocity of light between two points to be 300,000 km/s. A person in that space station then accelerates in a transparent rocket to, say, 100,000 km/s and measures the velocity again, it comes out the same. Meanwhile a person in the space station watches the rocket and thinks to himself "that light must be traveling at 400,000 km/s". That person is experiencing the illusion of velocity which results from thinking the two frames are somehow linked together such that velocity in one is the same as velocity in both when, in fact, there is really is no link. What the person in the space station actually saw was stray light which had bounced from the rocket frame to his eyes and that had taken time.

The velocity that person really saw was two beams of light, one which came from the source and bounced off some dust particles right in front of the source and traveled the distance to his eyes, and another that bounced off the target the light had gone to in the rocket to be used for the measurement in the rocket and had also gone stray and into his eyes. The time he saw was nothing like the time the person in the rocket saw, completely different light paths were involved. There was actually no way the person on the space station could have gauged the velocity of the light between the two points on the rocket without knowing the exact distances involved in all that, which he obviously couldn't. That's why his perception of the light traveling between the two points on the rocket could not possibly have been 400,000 km/s, he simply surmised that's what it must be, but he was mistaken, another victim of the illusion of velocity, in the twilight zone, which is what they called the Space Station.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2022 19:02:41
A person in a frame of reference on a space station measures the velocity of light between two points to be 300,000 km/s.
How?

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 20:01:10
Quote from: Centra on Yesterday at 06:25:34
" Me: "As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity predictions"

You: "Tosh. Sagnac is one of the predictions of SR, and is one of the falsification tests, which it passes precisely.
SR isn't just about straight line motion any more than it's about non-accelerating cases."
Apparently these scientists would disagree, judging from their article: On a Fringe Movement Registered on a Platform in Uniform Motion (1942). A. Dufour and F. Prunier   J. de Physique. Radium 3 , 9 (1942) 153-162.
I can't quote the equations as seen in the pdf, because they use symbols which can't be copy/pasted, they come out as squares, but I'm sure you can find the article if you feel the need to see them. The important thing is the numbers after them which show the fringe shifts. The actual result of the experiment was 0.56 um, classical theory prediction was almost right on and the SR prediction was off by a factor of more than 10. I'm sure you respect the results of scientific experiments, Mr Halc, so would you like to rephrase your statement that my words were "tosh"?

Quote
2° Part of optical circuit  is fixed to the revolving disc, the other part of the optical
circuit remains fixed compared to the laboratory. –

Under these conditions, which are those of our experiments, the shift of the fringes is due
obviously to the optical course fixed to the revolving disc. We will calculate the values
In the experiments made in accordance with assembly of figure 6, the area included in the
sector having for base the light path trained FDEOKJ and for top of the path the center C
of rotation of the platform had as an algebraic full value (because the surface of the small
basic triangle base ED in this figure must be counted as negative), A' = 1777 cm2
approximately, while the area of that of the same sector based light path FDEOKJ and
whose top is the item 0 where the observer is pulled by the disc, had as an algebraic full
value:
A = 169 cm2 approximately

By introducing these numerical values into the expression of the fringe shifts , one finds
with = 0.56 um, for the two directions of rotation and for an angular velocity of 1
turn/sec,
A' = 0.053 in fringes    (according to the classical theory)
e
A' = 0.005 in fringes    (according to the relativistic theory);
e
that is to say a value that is approximately ten times smaller, according to this last theory
than according to the preceding one.
The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention with the classical theory
and also with the result provided by this experiment. But given that, as the note of Mr.
Largevin appeared to allow the value to be reported higher, we have considered that the
center where the theoretical relativist must be presumedly placed can be arbitrarily
selected. The relativistic theory is found contrary to agreement with the classical theory
and the experiment if this center is obligatorily colinear with the center of rotation of the
disc, the only point on the disc which can be the permanent origin of Galilean axes not
subjected to the rotational movement of the unit. This is despite the explanation that Mr.
Langevin said to us, and which he arrived at after having been informed of the result of
our experiments.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2022 20:09:41
Now it's BC posting the tosh.

Fair enough.
I'm big enough and ugly enough to admit to being wrong.
On the other hand, I'm puzzled. I wasn't just disagreeing with him because... essentially everything he said was wrong.
I didn't think you could tell if you were in an accelerating upwards (at 9.8 m/s/s) lift or in a box standing on the Earth's surface.
If the two different theories apply (in the 2 cases) then that ought to allow you to distinguish.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2022 20:13:23
Apparently these scientists would disagree, judging from their article:
Just to clarify; do you mean this article? (Obviously, the original is in French)
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdf
The French version's here but it's paywalled anyway.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 18/01/2022 20:44:54
The illusion of velocity. A person in a frame of reference on a space station measures the velocity of light between two points to be 300,000 km/s. A person in that space station then accelerates in a transparent rocket to, say, 100,000 km/s and measures the velocity again, it comes out the same. Meanwhile a person in the space station watches the rocket and thinks to himself "that light must be traveling at 400,000 km/s". That person is experiencing the illusion of velocity which results from thinking the two frames are somehow linked together such that velocity in one is the same as velocity in both when, in fact, there is really is no link.
There is no illusion involved.  The person made an incorrect assumption he did not see any sort of illusion.
Oh I formulated a new theory alright, one which agrees with observation.
No, you haven't, based on what you have written.  Why don't you clearly write down the difference between your idea and the mainstream theory.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 18/01/2022 22:38:00
Apparently these scientists would disagree, judging from their article:
Just to clarify; do you mean this article? (Obviously, the original is in French)
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdf
The French version's here but it's paywalled anyway.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean, it clearly states that SR was off by a huge amount and Einstein Fan Club President, Paul Langevin, was unable to cover for him. In fact, the motion involved is so slow that SR probably wouldn't even come into play, Einstein simply has no explanation for Sagnac effect, which is why he never even attempted to explain it, even though he was around after the experiments. Show me one quote from Einstein explaining it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2022 22:49:06
Show me one quote from Einstein explaining it.
Just to be clear...
How old do you think that Einstein and Langevin were when that paper was published?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2022 22:50:05
Einstein simply has no explanation for Sagnac effect,
Yes he does.
So SR predicts Sagnac just fine
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 06:23:11
Show me one quote from Einstein explaining it.
Just to be clear...
How old do you think that Einstein and Langevin were when that paper was published?
Einstein 63, Langevin 70.So your point is that a 63 year old man is incapable of writing? Why was Langevin able to comment on that article, and get shown to still be wrong, but Einstein wasn't? Face it, there are still things that SR can't account for, so the case on the velocity of light is not closed, contrary to the opinion of the Einstein Fan Club
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 06:24:14
Einstein simply has no explanation for Sagnac effect,
Yes he does.
So SR predicts Sagnac just fine
No he doesn't, your turn. From Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories
By Al Kelly:
Quote
This author has located no reference at all by Einstein to the Sagnac tests, and that can be viewed as very strange because the tests were on the speed of light, which is the basis and core of SR. Einstein visited Miller in the U.S.A. in 1921, where tests on the speed of light were in progress. Lorentz also visited the same site. Sagnac's work was referenced by Silberstein (1921), who worked with Michelson on the latter's 1925 tests (described later). Miller was a co-worker of Michelson. Silberstein (1921) remarked, "As a matter of fact, Einstein himself never entered into the details of this important problem of rotation" and "In fine, the optical circuit experiment may easily become crucial and fatal for Einstein's theory."
Quote
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 08:30:56
So your point is that a 63 year old man is incapable of writing?
No, my point is that your focus on what just 2 old men, among thousands of scientists, is absurd.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 10:52:00
So your point is that a 63 year old man is incapable of writing?
No, my point is that your focus on what just 2 old men, among thousands of scientists, is absurd.
Oh, so Einstein and Langevin are "just 2 old men" huh? So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 11:50:51
Here is something to consider in regard to relative velocity of inertial frames. If one sphere has a mass of 10 kg and another has a mass of 1 kg and their motion is such that the distance between them is increasing at, say, 165,000 km/s, can they be considered to be moving away from each other at the same velocity for purposes of calculating time dilation? Maybe not, maybe they should really be considered to be moving away from a certain point between them which is determined by their relative masses, like the barycenter of two orbiting masses. The 10 kg sphere would be considered to be moving away from that point at a lesser velocity than the 1 kg sphere is. The following is just to illustrate the principle involved, I don't know for certain that the velocities relative to the barycenter would be a simple ratio of 1 to 10, it would have to be close, there's probably some kind of squaring involved. For this illustration it's not necessary to have the exact velocities anyway, just that they total the same as the direct velocity between the two spheres. The difference shwn at the end of the illustration is so great that I can't see it mattering what the exact figures would be, because the two velocities relative to the barycenter would definitely not be equal, whatever their true exact values might be.

If the 10 kg sphere is moving away from the barycenter at velocity 15,000 km/s and the 1 kg sphere is moving away from it in the opposite direction at 150,000 km/s, you might calculate the apparent time dilation from either frame to be the simple sum of those two velocities,165,000 km/s. Using a time dilation calculator based on Einstein's equations and enter a time interval of 1 second and an observer velocity of 165,000 km/s the answer 1.197728 seconds. Now what happens when you, instead, enter the velocities of each sphere relative to the barycenter separately? For the 10 kg sphere you enter 15,000 km/s and get 1.001254 seconds. For the 1 kg sphere you enter 150,000 km/s and get 1.154967 seconds. What happens when you find the difference between those two figures? You get the true time difference which would be perceived in both frames in relation to the other, 0.153713 seconds, which is not the same as 0.197728 seconds, which is what we got by entering the sum of the two velocities as a single figure.

It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation. Time dilation cannot be accurately calculated from the velocity of two objects of different masses as a single velocity relative to each other, it can only be calculated from the separate velocities of each relative to their barycenter, in my opinion. If those spheres were the only two objects in a vacuum, their barycenter would be the reference for "stationary time" and their velocities and perceived time dilation would each be relative to it, if velocity based time dilation is a reality. If their gravitational time dilation is different based on their different masses then, logically, so would their motion based time dilation be, and using their barycenter as the reference would be the logical way to deal with that, just like it's used to deal with the orbit of two masses.

This shows that it may not always be wise to accept theories as being valid just because they've been accepted by many for a long period of time, flaws could be identified at any time, like with the theory of the sun revolving around the earth.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2022 13:45:46
Here is something to consider in regard to relative velocity of inertial frames. If one sphere has a mass of 10 kg and another has a mass of 1 kg and their motion is such that the distance between them is increasing at, say, 165,000 km/s, can they be considered to be moving away from each other at the same velocity for purposes of calculating time dilation?
Yes.
Maybe not, maybe they should really be considered to be moving away from a certain point between them which is determined by their relative masses, like the barycenter of two orbiting masses. The 10 kg sphere would be considered to be moving away from that point at a lesser velocity than the 1 kg sphere is. The following is just to illustrate the principle involved, I don't know for certain that the velocities relative to the barycenter would be a simple ratio of 1 to 10, it would have to be close. For this illustration it's not necessary to have the exact velocities anyway, just that they total the same as the direct velocity between the two spheres. The difference shwn at the end of the illustration is so great that I can't see it mattering what the exact figures would be, because the two velocities relative to the barycenter would definitely not be equal, whatever their true exact values might be.
No, that would give the wrong answer.
If the 10 kg sphere is moving away from the barycenter at velocity 15,000 km/s and the 1 kg sphere is moving away from it in the opposite direction at 150,000 km/s, you might calculate the apparent time dilation from either frame to be the simple sum of those two velocities,165,000 km/s. Using a time dilation calculator based on Einstein's equations and enter a time interval of 1 second and an observer velocity of 165,000 km/s the answer 1.197728 seconds. Now what happens when you, instead, enter the velocities of each sphere relative to the barycenter separately? For the 10 kg sphere you enter 15,000 km/s and get 1.001254 seconds. For the 1 kg sphere you enter 150,000 km/s and get 1.154967 seconds. What happens when you find the difference between those two figures? You get the true time difference which would be perceived in both frames in relation to the other, 0.153713 seconds, which is not the same as 0.197728 seconds, which is what we got by entering the sum of the two velocities as a single figure.
See, that gives you the wrong answer.
It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation. Time dilation cannot be accurately calculated from the velocity of two objects of different masses as a single velocity relative to each other, it can only be calculated from the separate velocities of each relative to their barycenter, in my opinion. If those spheres were the only two objects in a vacuum, their barycenter would be the reference for "stationary time" and their velocities and perceived time dilation would each be relative to it, if velocity based time dilation is a reality. If their gravitational time dilation is different based on their different masses then, logically, so would their motion based time dilation be, and using their barycenter as the reference would be the logical way to deal with that, just like it's used to deal with the orbit of two masses.
Nope.  You have found a flaw in you understanding, just one of many.
This shows that it may not always be wise to accept theories as being valid just because they've been accepted by many for a long period of time, flaws could be identified at any time, like with the theory of the sun revolving around the earth
This actually shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
In university you are not asked to 'accept' theories you are tasked with proving that they are accurate by experiments and mathematics.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 14:05:02
This actually shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
In university you are not asked to 'accept' theories you are tasked with proving that they are accurate by experiments and mathematics.
I think your post shows how naive you are. It is in no way logical that two objects of different masses should be considered as equally moving away from each other in a vacuum. Why don't you explain how that is logical, Mr Science. So far you haven't explained anything, just issued pronouncements based on nothing whatsoever, like I'm supposed to accept it and say oh gee I guess I'm wrong, some random guy said so.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 14:12:45
So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?
I didn't.
This is what I said was the authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

It's called experimental evidence.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 14:14:46
Do you seriously think I accept your pronouncements as valid in any way?
We don't think you accept science...
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 14:16:06
It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation.
It only appears that way to you.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 14:23:30
So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?
I didn't.
This is what I said was the authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

It's called experimental evidence.
Oh right, Wikipedia knows all. Where do you think they got General Relativity from, pulled it out of a hat?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 14:34:10
It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation.
It only appears that way to you.
And those with a high enough level of comprehension.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 14:35:27
Do you seriously think I accept your pronouncements as valid in any way?
We don't think you accept science...
Whoopee.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2022 15:16:06
It is in no way logical that two objects of different masses should be considered as equally moving away from each other in a vacuum
That is flat out wrong.  Why do you think the mass has anything to do with it?  The voyager space craft is moving at 34,000 mph away from earth, but it is just as valid to say the earth is moving at 34,000 mph away from the voyager space craft.
My advice is to learn some physics if you find science interesting instead of making up silly stuff that is wrong.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2022 15:28:06
Say we got rid of the mountains moving; need for dark energy unicorns never seen in the lab. The energy balance is smaller so we need to another explanation, that uses less energy. If we combine the equivalency principle, we have the exothermic output of gravity as mass lowers  gravitational potential. This will create an affect that look like anti-gravity such as centrifugal force; rotation, and expansions. There is no extra energy needed; correct fuel amount.
Thanks for the irrelevant silly post.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2022 15:35:57
Whoopee.
Just another anti-science troll...  [yawn]
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 15:38:04
A time dilation calculator shows that objects with relative velocity of 100,000 km/s would supposedly show time dilation of 1.060752 seconds from one observer's point of view, and objects with relative velocity of 200,000 km/s would show 1.342385. So if two objects are moving in the same straight axis in opposite directions from a third object, all of equal mass, at velocity of 100,000 km/s each from that middle object, would the two outer objects show the same times or different times on their clocks? How could they show a time difference of 0.342385 seconds relative to each other and simultaneously show a time difference of .060752 seconds each relative to the middle clock? What would happen if they went back to the middle and compared all three clocks? Also let's specify that the two outer ones traveled 100,000 km from the middle one on the way out and the same on the way back.

Ignoring acceleration/deceleration, the two outer clocks should be 0.121504 behind the middle clock, but they should also be 0.684770 different from each other, as percentages regardless what times were showing on the clocks, because they were in relative motion of 200,000 km/s both ways, take your pick which would be the fast one and which the slow one, because SR doesn't tell us, you tell me which would be which. Even if acceleration would change the figures, it would still be equal for all three relatively, because they all have equal masses. One accelerating from the other is the same as vice versa, so it would balance out. I want Origin and Bored Chemist to provide an actual answer, instead of something else which will be completely pointless and irrelevant. If you can't answer that, I guess you have a problem, and I doubt if Wikipedia will answer it for you. Maybe Halc would also like to give it a try.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2022 15:56:50
A time dilation calculator shows that objects with relative velocity of 100,000 km/s would supposedly show time dilation of 1.060752 seconds from one observer's point of view, and objects with relative velocity of 200,000 km/s would show 1.342385
OK.
So if two objects are moving in the same straight axis in opposite directions from a third object, all of equal mass, at velocity of 100,000 km/s each from that middle object, would the two outer objects show the same times or different times on their clocks?
First there is no need to specify the mass, it is irrelevant to the problem.
There is not enough information in your question to give a valid answer.  You need to specify which frame you are talking about.
When thinking about SR you should consider yourself at rest compared to all other inertial frames.  The clocks in all the other frames are moving slower and the amount they are slower depends on their velocity relative to you.
I guess you have a problem.
The problem is trying to get you to understand physics.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 18:21:32
So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?
I didn't.
This is what I said was the authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

It's called experimental evidence.
Oh right, Wikipedia knows all. Where do you think they got General Relativity from, pulled it out of a hat?
Did you deliberately miss the point?
The authority is the experiments themselves.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 18:22:58
It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation.
It only appears that way to you.
And those with a high enough level of comprehension.
Name two.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 18:36:53
There is not enough information in your question to give a valid answer.  You need to specify which frame you are talking about.
When thinking about SR you should consider yourself at rest compared to all other inertial frames.  The clocks in all the other frames are moving slower and the amount they are slower depends on their velocity relative to you.
But do the clocks really show different times when all three objects go back together or not? I assume you don't mean they just look different from the frame you're viewing them from. If they really change time then the problem is that you can consider either of the three objects to be the stationary one, there is no true stationary. How can the times showing on the clocks depend on which object you arbitrarily choose to consider the stationary one? The view that one of the outer objects is stationary, the middle one is moving away from it at a certain speed, and the third object is moving away from the middle one at that same speed is as valid as choosing to consider the middle object stationary and both outer objects moving away from it in opposite directions at equal speeds, but relativity would predict different times showing on the clocks depending on which of those scenarios we arbitrarily chose to view the situation as. Thereon lies the paradox, nothing really changed, we just chose to view things from a different perspective, but each perspective would suggest a different time dilation outcome.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2022 18:49:38
So if two objects are moving in the same straight axis in opposite directions from a third object, all of equal mass, at velocity of 100,000 km/s each from that middle object, would the two outer objects show the same times or different times on their clocks?
Here is how it would work.  Assume there is a planet point A and both ships fly in opposite directions at 100,000 km/sec from the planet.  The one going to the left is B and the one to the right is C.
After one second the point A would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on B and C.  From point B frame after 1 sec they would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on A and only 0.745 sec had elapsed for C.   From point C frame after 1 sec they would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on A and only 0.745 sec had elapsed for B.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 19:18:49
Here is how it would work.  Assume there is a planet point A and both ships fly in opposite directions at 100,000 km/hr from the planet.  The one going to the left is B and the one to the right is C.
After one second the point A would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on B and C.  From point B frame after 1 sec they would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on A and only 0.745 sec had elapsed for C.   From point C frame after 1 sec they would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on A and only 0.745 sec had elapsed for B.
Do you mean they only looked like they showed those times due to the time it took for the light from the clocks to reach each person's eyes or do you mean they literally had their times altered such that if the clock times were written down when B and C got 100,000 km away from A and then they went back to A that A would see those times written down? Because A wouldn't be able to see 0.943 on both papers and B and C also see 0.745 on each other's papers. My understanding is that Einstein meant the times literally changed and time to observers' eyes was not considered. I could accept that it might LOOK like those times but obviously the times couldn't actually  change by different amounts at once. If we're just talking about how it LOOKED then it can LOOK like light is moving faster than it really is, the illusion of velocity just like the illusion of times on clocks.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 19/01/2022 19:26:24
Assume there is a planet point A and both ships fly in opposite directions at 100,000 km/sec from the planet.  The one going to the left is B and the one to the right is C.
After one second the point A would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on B and C.
To be precise, B and C would age 0.943 sec relative to A's frame. The observer at A wouldn't actually see that since the objects are receding and Doppler effect would reduce that to around 0.63 seconds, what observer B actually sees.

Quote
From point B frame after 1 sec they would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on A and only 0.745 sec had elapsed for C.
Only 0.804 for C. It's only moving at 178432 km/sec relative to B, not 200000.  Don't forget relativistic velocity addition.

To Centra:
There is no 'paradox' since there is no absolute time that you are assuming.
Relative to any object, time runs slower for the other objects. This is not the same as saying that time runs faster for one object than another, a statement which lacks a frame reference and is thus meaningless.

You seem to have no desire to actually understand anything, so I don't expect you to, but you have no grounds to declare the inconsistency of a theory which you admit yourself you lack even the most basic understanding.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 19:34:31
To Centra:
There is no 'paradox' since there is no absolute time that you are assuming.
Relative to any object, time runs slower for the other objects. This is not the same as saying that time runs faster for one object than another, a statement which lacks a frame reference and is thus meaningless.

You seem to have no desire to actually understand anything, so I don't expect you to, but you have no grounds to declare the inconsistency of a theory which you admit yourself you lack even the most basic understanding.
I said it was seen as inconsistent with the results of experiments in 1942. What's wrong with declaring an observable fact, unless you want to suggest that those scientists were lying, which nobody else ever suggested at the time. You still haven't explained those results not matching up with the predictions of SR, by the way, you just completely ignored it, like Einstein himself did. If you can't explain something, act like it never happened, is that the strategy? "You seem to have no desire to actually understand" that experiment, what's that about, Halc?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 20:03:18
To Centra:
There is no 'paradox' since there is no absolute time that you are assuming.
Relative to any object, time runs slower for the other objects. This is not the same as saying that time runs faster for one object than another, a statement which lacks a frame reference and is thus meaningless.

You seem to have no desire to actually understand anything, so I don't expect you to, but you have no grounds to declare the inconsistency of a theory which you admit yourself you lack even the most basic understanding.
I said it was seen as inconsistent with the results of experiments in 1942. What's wrong with declaring an observable fact, unless you want to suggest that those scientists were lying, which nobody else ever suggested at the time. You still haven't explained those results not matching up with the predictions of SR, by the way, you just completely ignored it, like Einstein himself did. If you can't explain something, act like it never happened, is that the strategy? "You seem to have no desire to actually understand" that experiment, what's that about, Halc?
Why don't you stop messing about, repeat the experiment they did, show that relativity is wrong, and collect your Nobel prize?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 20:04:16
To be precise, B and C would age 0.943 sec relative to A's frame. The observer at A wouldn't actually see that since the objects are receding and Doppler effect would reduce that to around 0.63 seconds, what observer B actually sees...

...Only 0.804 for C. It's only moving at 178432 km/sec relative to B, not 200000.  Don't forget relativistic velocity addition.
Sounds complicated, Ill have t think about it some more.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 19/01/2022 20:05:48
Why don't you stop messing about, repeat the experiment they did, show that relativity is wrong, and collect your Nobel prize?
Pretty sure they don't give out prizes for repeating experiments.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2022 20:14:13
The observer at A wouldn't actually see that since the objects are receding and Doppler effect would reduce that to around 0.63 seconds, what observer B actually sees.
I didn't include the doppler effect because I was talking about relative times on the clocks, but my sloppy language didn't make that clear.
Only 0.804 for C. It's only moving at 178432 km/sec relative to B, not 200000.  Don't forget relativistic velocity addition.
Right-o, thanks for pointing that out, I was clearly incorrect on that [GD it!]
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 20:21:58
Why don't you stop messing about, repeat the experiment they did, show that relativity is wrong, and collect your Nobel prize?
Pretty sure they don't give out prizes for repeating experiments.
If you overturned Einstein, you would get a prize.
Why don't you hurry up- before anyone else does it?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2022 20:32:13
What would B and C write down on paper as being the time on their clocks when they reached 100,000 km from A?
You do realize that when A and  B say they have traveled 100,000 km that point A will say they have traveled about 106,000 km.
I could accept that it might LOOK like those times but obviously the times couldn't actually  change by different amounts at once.
Yes, it is actually different.  If 2 different space ships left earth at different speeds and then retuned, the earth clock and the 2 ships clocks would all show different times.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 20:46:17
I could accept that it might LOOK like those times but obviously the times couldn't actually  change by different amounts at once.
The experiment was done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Relativity won.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 19/01/2022 21:13:21
I have split the posts that Puppypower made off into a new thread. As such, I expect Puppypower to keep any such discussion about energy differences between reference frames in that one thread. Any posts about it made elsewhere will be considered spam and I will act accordingly.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 20/01/2022 09:28:31
This may be shocking to some sensitive viewers, but Einstein did not originate E=mc2, just thought you should know in case you were under any illusions to that effect.
Quote
E = mc2: Who Got There First? The equation E = mc2 is synonymous with the name Einstein. However, it may come as a surprise to many to find out that Einstein was not in fact the first to derive the famous equation. In 1903, the Italian Olinto De Pretto, who was an engineer/industrialist with experience in materials and their properties, gave the precise formula E = mc2. It was first published in June 1903. De Pretto delivered a second paper on November 29th 1903 in Venice, and this paper was published in the proceedings of the Venetian Royal Institute of Science, Literature and Art in February 1904. This is a translation of what De Pretto concluded in that paper: Given then E = mc2, in = 1 kg and c = 3 x 106 km/s. anyone can see that the quantity of calories obtained is represented by 10794 followed by 9 zeros, that is more than ten thousand billions. To what terrible result has our reasoning brought us? Nobody will easily admit that an amount of energy equal to the quantity that can be derived from millions and millions of kilograms of coal is concealed and stored at a latent state in one kilogram of matter of any kind; this idea will be undoubtedly considered foolish. However, even if the result of our calculations be reduced somewhat, it should be nevertheless admitted that inside matter there must be stored so much energy as to strike anyone's imagination. What is in comparison to it, the energy that can be derived from the richest combustible or from the most powerful chemical reaction?

Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories
By Al Kelly (page 15)
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 20/01/2022 10:02:24
I could accept that it might LOOK like those times but obviously the times couldn't actually  change by different amounts at once.
The experiment was done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Relativity won.
That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless. The earth did not rotate beneath the planes as if they were in space, it pulled/pushed them with it in the atmosphere. For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't.

You could also cite the experiment with the highly sensitive atomic clock in recent times where they found that raising the clock 33 cm caused a difference in the time rate due to gravity difference and also claimed to have confirmed that motion also affected time. The problem there is that their "motion" was in fact making the cesium atoms vibrate, which is not the same as simply moving the clock around. We don't know how vibrating atoms effects a cesium clock's operation.

I accept that gravity seems to slow clocks, another experiment was done by others involving taking a cesium clock 1000 feet or meters up a mountain, which also showed the expected difference. Gravity and motion are two different things though, and I don't know of an experiment that proved conclusively that motion really has that effect. There may be some, I just don't know of them. We don't know why gravity affects time though, we don't know that it's due to curvature of spacetime, just that it does.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 20/01/2022 10:31:38
I must clarify what I said about the Sagnac effect being inconsistent with Special Relativity. It's actually the experiment by Dufour and Prunier in which part of the apparatus was in rotation and part was stationary in the lab frame. That was the experiment I quoted earlier a couple times. Here's what they said about the regular Sagnac experiments.
Quote
1 The optical circuit, closed, is in its entirety fixed to the revolving disc. --
This is the well-known case of experiments of Sagnac. The two theories are here in agreement between them and in agreement with the experiment, with regard to the total shift of the 8 fringes recorded on the disc turning. However, the traditional theorist and the relativistic theorist are not in agreement between them on the distribution that they make, of the cause of the phenomenon, between the various components of the total course. But so that the physicist operator who makes the experiment has the possibility of choosing between these two theoretical interpretations, it would be necessary to take an experimental measurement directly of the speed of light on the platform in rotation, an operation which is obviously impossible to realize with the precision necessary, in the current state of the art.
Quote
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 10:38:30
This may be shocking to some sensitive viewers, but Einstein did not originate E=mc2, just thought you should know in case you were under any illusions to that effect.
As I already said, it's the experiments that matter.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 10:46:51
That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless.
The thing that actually measures time is in a vacuum chamber.
The clock doesn't know if there is air or not.

For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't.
If your objection was valid, (and it's not) then you are still mistaken.
Locally, there was a wind traveling at about 1000 mph.
The air inside the plane was traveling.

You could also cite the experiment with the highly sensitive atomic clock in recent times where they found that raising the clock 33 cm caused a difference in the time rate due to gravity difference and also claimed to have confirmed that motion also affected time.

I strongly suspect that experiment is not showing that motion affects time, it's showing that gravity affects time.
It's probably better if you understand experiments before criticising them.
We don't know how vibrating atoms
And atom can't really vibrate.

Gravity and motion are two different things though
Nobody said they were the same, but they have both been shown to alter the rate of the passage of time.

We don't know why gravity affects time though, we don't know that it's due to curvature of spacetime, just that it does.
We don't know "why" gravity makes you fall down, but we know that it does and we know how to do the calculations.
It's the same with everything else- including time dilation.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 10:48:01
it would be necessary to take an experimental measurement directly of the speed of light on the platform in rotation, an operation which is obviously impossible to realize with the precision necessary, in the current state of the art.
That's the bit where they accept that their 1942 experiment isn't as good as it needs to be.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 20/01/2022 12:52:26
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24
"That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless."

The thing that actually measures time is in a vacuum chamber.
The clock doesn't know if there is air or not.

And what was causing the vacuum chambers to move? Were they in space moving by themselves or were they in planes moving in the air, which was itself moving with the earth? Your objection to my objection makes no sense.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24
"For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't."

If your objection was valid, (and it's not) then you are still mistaken.
Locally, there was a wind traveling at about 1000 mph.
The air inside the plane was traveling.
Oh, the air inside the plane was moving at 1000 mph? I find that difficult to believe.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24
"You could also cite the experiment with the highly sensitive atomic clock in recent times where they found that raising the clock 33 cm caused a difference in the time rate due to gravity difference and also claimed to have confirmed that motion also affected time."

I strongly suspect that experiment is not showing that motion affects time, it's showing that gravity affects time.
It's probably better if you understand experiments before criticising them.
I addressed the motion part of the experiment later in the post, stating that they made the cesium atoms vibrate to simulate motion. It's probably better if you understand posts before criticising them.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24
"We don't know how vibrating atoms
And atom can't really vibrate.
That would be the part right there.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24
"Gravity and motion are two different things though"

Nobody said they were the same, but they have both been shown to alter the rate of the passage of time.
I disagree.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24
"We don't know why gravity affects time though, we don't know that it's due to curvature of spacetime, just that it does."

We don't know "why" gravity makes you fall down, but we know that it does and we know how to do the calculations.
It's the same with everything else- including time dilation.
How did you know how to do the calculations, wasn't it from Einstein's theories? Like I said, we don't know that motion affects time the way he said at all and if gravity does affect time, we don't know that it's for the reason Einstein said, so how can it validate his theory? Maybe his calculations just match the actual observed time dilation by coincidence. There are articles showing that the same results can be obtained using classic theory and not involving the speed of light at all. Making a theory that has the same results as other existing theories does not make that theory valid.

See this page for a quick summary of the problems with Einstein time dilation http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm (http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm)
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 20/01/2022 12:54:59
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:31:38
"it would be necessary to take an experimental measurement directly of the speed of light on the platform in rotation, an operation which is obviously impossible to realize with the precision necessary, in the current state of the art."

That's the bit where they accept that their 1942 experiment isn't as good as it needs to be.
Only problem is, they weren't talking about the experiment whose results contradicted Special Relativity, that was the next section. They were talking about the regular Sagnac effect there.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 20/01/2022 13:13:27
How did you know how to do the calculations, wasn't it from Einstein's theories?
Among others.
Like I said, we don't know that motion affects time the way he said
Sure we do, haven't you been paying attention?  Experimentation agrees with the theory.
and if gravity does affect time, we don't know that it's for the reason Einstein said, so how can it validate his theory?
Haven't you been paying attention?  Experimentation agrees with the theory.
Maybe his calculations just match the actual observed time dilation by coincidence.
Pretty mind boggling coincidence!  All experiments just happen to agree, over and over?  GPS just happens to work every time I use it?  Boy is that a lucky coincidence.
There are articles showing that the same results can be obtained using classic theory and not involving the speed of light at all.

See this page for a quick summary of the problems with Einstein time dilation http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm
Oh great, the crank is going to start parading out the crank websites.  There as some swell websites about bigfoot or lizard aliens running the government you might also be interested in...
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 20/01/2022 16:11:13
More about Olinto De Pretto and E=mc2. The only difference is he used "v" instead of "c" to represent the speed of light and he didn't put the "E" in front. He even went further and gave the formula for obtaining the caloric value, mv2/8338.
Quote
On 23 November 1903 a memoir by Dr. Olinto De Pretto entitled "Hypothesis of the ether in the life of the universe" was presented by Count Almerico Da Schio to the Royal Veneto Institute of Sciences, Letters and Arts (which later appeared in February 1904 in the Proceedings of the same Institute, Volume LXIII, Part II, pp. 439-500).

In the third paragraph of this paper, entitled "Energy of the ether and latent energy in matter" (see the following Chapter IX), we find formulated not only the same relationship hypothesized by Einstein between mass and energy, but also its 'correct' interpretation physics, which is expressed through the following words:

"The matter of any body contains in itself a sum of energy represented by the entire mass of the body, which moves all united and en bloc in space, with the same speed as the individual particles. [...] The formula mv 2 gives us the living force and the formula mv 2/8338 gives us, expressed in calories, this energy. Given therefore m = 1 and v equal to 300 million meters [per second], which would be the speed of light, also allowed for the ether, everyone will be able to see that you get a quantity of calories represented by 10794 followed by 9 zeros and that is over ten million million "(pp. 458-459).
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 20/01/2022 16:55:10
That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless.

Why?

The earth did not rotate beneath the planes as if they were in space, it pulled/pushed them with it in the atmosphere. For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't.

Please explain why that would be necessary.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 20/01/2022 17:31:11
That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless.

Why?

The earth did not rotate beneath the planes as if they were in space, it pulled/pushed them with it in the atmosphere. For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't.

Please explain why that would be necessary.
I misinterpreted what they were trying to do. The air wouldn't matter because it was just the rotation of the earth itself that they were concerned with, it would have been the same if they could drive vehicles around the earth.

About the experiment being shoddily executed, this quote is one thing I read that gave me that idea.
Quote
3 Conclusions
The HK experiment has been reproduced by recalculating the predicted values using flight data provided in [HK-3] using the formulas described in [HK-1] and [HK-4], and compared with expected values provided with HK in their paper in [HK-1] and actual observations in [HK-2]. It is expected that the values re-calculated using theory model matches with the HK predicted ones, as presented in [HK-2] and [HK-5], within the limit of the approximation applied, but that is not the case for both general and simplified models.

Passing to the observed values, the figures provided by HK in their paper significantly change from the preliminary ones in [HK-3] to the final ones in [HK-2] without any clarification of the type of consolidation made in the data post-processing. The reason could be due to a wrong use of the model expressions or their flight parameters, which are not fully released by HK, and/or to insufficient experiment data accuracy, which did not consider external effects (e.g. environmental) influencing the measurements.

As final conclusion, it is noted that
1. the accuracy of the clocks used for the experiment, namely the rms of their measured times both on ground and in flight, looks of the same order of magnitude of the effect to be measured. That raises doubts on the possibility of using any type of result for the purpose of the experiment’s objectives;

2. overall all analysed data, either predicted, recalculated and observed, are within the same order of magnitude (tenths of nsecs for Eastward case and hundreds of nsecs for Westward case), but the residual differences as significantly high (up to 40%), meaning that the accuracy of the experimental measurements was not good enough for providing a conclusive answer to the objective of validating the SR/GR model as the only one valid for time shift.

Hafele-Keating Experiment Reassessed
Gianni Casonato
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 17:56:30
And what was causing the vacuum chambers to move?
The stuff in the chamber doesn't know, so it can't make any difference.
That's why your objection makes no sense.

Oh, the air inside the plane was moving at 1000 mph? I find that difficult to believe.
The equator spins at about 1000 mph.
If the air in the planes wasn't moving at something like that speed then the wings would get ripped off.

You could also cite the experiment with the highly sensitive atomic clock in recent times where they found that raising the clock 33 cm caused a difference in the time rate due to gravity difference and also claimed to have confirmed that motion also affected time. The problem there is that their "motion" was in fact making the cesium atoms vibrate, which is not the same as simply moving the clock around. We don't know how vibrating atoms effects a cesium clock's operation.
Are you talking about the experiment wiki cites?

"In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970s. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm (13 in).[27][28]"
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 18:04:11
I disagree.
People who disagree with reality get called lots of things, but "scientist" isn't one of them.
How did you know how to do the calculations, wasn't it from Einstein's theories?
As you said, Einstein wasn't the only one to derive that formula.

Like I said, we don't know that motion affects time the way he said at all and if gravity does affect time,
Yes we do.
Because we checked.
Maybe his calculations just match the actual observed time dilation by coincidence
Every single time it has ever been tested, to a precision of a part in millions of millions?

How small a straw are you prepared to clutch at?
There are articles showing that the same results can be obtained using classic theory and not involving the speed of light at all.
Prove it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 18:06:18
I misinterpreted what they were trying to do.
Why?
Is it because you do not know what you are talking about?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 20/01/2022 21:50:35
Are you talking about the experiment wiki cites?

"In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970s. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm (13 in).[27][28]"
Yeah, I guess it might be valid, I viewed the pdf of the experiments and the motion time dilation part does match the predicted curve very well. Anyway, I'm not saying everything about relativity theory is wrong, but it can also be arrived at by classical methods, it's not hard to find articles about it.

My theory in this thread is just about how the thought experiments I've seen don't seem to actually make sense as showing real light velocity situations.

From what I've read, about the Sagnac effect and other experiments, light maintains constant speed relative the the lab frame, which is really the earth frame, more specifically the center of earth frame. It appears that light has constant velocity relative to the largest mass in the vicinity of its emission, the earth instead of the turntable and rotating light source in Sagnac experiments, for instance. That's what was concluded in the book "Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories". You can't download the whole book for free but you can read much of in Google Books.

All those light experiments like Sagnac and Michelson always are explainable by light speed being constant in relation to the at rest center of the earth. I guess they consider it at rest because it rotates so slowly in comparison to the surface. But what I said about light speed being constant in relation to the largest mass near where it's emitted might also explain stellar aberration. The light from the stars is constant relative to those stars, being very massive. Obviously it has to be constant relative to something, and it's not aether, but it could be the largest mass in the vicinity of its emission.

I say "vicinity" because the light sources in the Sagnac type experiments were not part of the lab or earth frame, being on the rotating turntable, and yet the light they emitted behaved as if it had been emitted in the stationary lab frame. It didn't behave like it was in a different inertial frame with its own constant light speed, it acted like it was part of the lab frame. How could that happen unless the constant speed is relative to the largest mass, the earth, which the lab frame is also part of? So that's a little different than what Einstein postulated. His postulates would predict that the light emitted and received in the turntable frame would be constant relative to the turntable, not the lab/earth, a separate "stationary" frame.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 22:08:15
Are you talking about the experiment wiki cites?

"In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970s. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm (13 in).[27][28]"
Yeah, I guess it might be valid,

So, do you understand that the experiment which refers to 33cm is a verification (of enormous precision) of the effect of gravity on the rate of passage of time?
(And do you understand that the experiment is northing to do with movement? That's a different experiment)
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 22:10:06
Anyway, I'm not saying everything about relativity theory is wrong, but it can also be arrived at by classical methods, it's not hard to find articles about it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 22:12:46
My theory in this thread is just about how the thought experiments I've seen don't seem to actually make sense as showing real light velocity situations.
We have shown that you do not understand them.
Is it any wonder that they "don't seem to actually make sense"?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 20/01/2022 22:21:06
it would be necessary to take an experimental measurement directly of the speed of light on the platform in rotation, an operation which is obviously impossible to realize with the precision necessary, in the current state of the art.
That's the bit where they accept that their 1942 experiment isn't as good as it needs to be.
Just a note: No instrument is accurate enough. They're talking about measuring the one-way speed of light, which cannot be done at all, per Galilean relativity theory coupled with Maxwell's equations. On the other hand, measuring the value of c can be done (and had been done at the time of the writing of the above quote) on a rotating platform.

Just to clarify; do you mean this article? (Obviously, the original is in French)
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdf
The French version's here but it's paywalled anyway.
Interesting that conspiracyoflight would pick up this Dufour and Prunier (D&P) article. It certainly wasn't first posted there.
The site is a religious science-denial site, and no paper makes its way in there unless it is fallacious. It became an interesting homework assignment to find your field of study and point out the mistakes made by each of the articles in the chosen field. This article is no exception, despite the fact that it agrees that the Sagnac effect does not contradict relativity:
Quote from: D&P
[case] 1 The optical circuit, closed, is in its entirety fixed to the revolving disc.
This is the well-known case of experiments of Sagnac. The two theories are here in agreement between them and in agreement with the experiment, with regard to the total shift of the 8 fringes recorded on the disc turning
This is an important clue that the mistake is not with the calculations made for the rotating part of the experiment, but by the fixed part, as shown in the diagram on page 10 where the beams exit the plate and detour to the ceiling for a while, to come down at the opposing mirror.

As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity predictions
Interesting that the very paper you quote says quite the opposite just a few lines above the part you quoted. See the quote just above.

In reality, relativity theory adds almost nothing to the classic calculation of the effect. In order for relativity theory to be invoked, you need to spin the device at relativistic speeds and then let various theories compete for descriptions of how the rotating device must deform at those speeds. But ring interferrometers work today detecting the slightest rotation, such that they are commonly found in say video game controllers.
So relativity doesn't come into play at all, but Galilean physics must still be followed, and D&P fail to do even this.

Quote
I can't quote the equations as seen in the pdf, because they use symbols which can't be copy/pasted, they come out as squares, but I'm sure you can find the article if you feel the need to see them.
Quote from: D&P
[case] 2 Part of optical circuit  is fixed to the revolving disc, the other part of the optical circuit remains fixed compared to the laboratory. –

Under these conditions, which are those of our experiments, the shift of the fringes is due obviously to the optical course fixed to the revolving disc. We will calculate the values which return to us according to the two theories. In the experiments made in accordance with assembly of figure 6, the area included in the sector having for base the light path trained FDEOKJ and for top of the path the center C of rotation of the platform had as an algebraic full value (because the surface of the small basic triangle base ED in this figure must be counted as negative), A' = 1777 cm2 approximately, while the area of that of the same sector based light path FDEOKJ and whose top is the item 0 where the observer is pulled by the disc, had as an algebraic full value:
A = 169 cm2 approximately

By introducing these numerical values into the expression of the fringe shifts δ, one finds with λ= 0.56 um, for the two directions of rotation and for an angular velocity of 1 turn/sec,
δ = (16-A') / eλ = 0.053 in fringes (according to the classical theory)
δ = (16-A') / eλ = 0.005 in fringes (according to the relativistic theory);

that is to say a value that is approximately ten times smaller, according to this last theory than according to the preceding one.
The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention with the classical theory and also with the result provided by this experiment.
...
Concerning the part in blue:
The symbols are right here on the site, so you don't even need tex. The paper says (absurdly):
δ = (16-A') / eλ = 0.053 in fringes (according to the classical theory)
δ = (16-A') / eλ = 0.005 in fringes (according to the relativistic theory);

This makes no sense. Two identical equations yield completely different values. So maybe there's a translation error. I think the lower equation meant to say A=..., not A'=...,

I see A'=1777 cm˛ in one place and A=169 cm˛ elsewhere, but relativity doesn't suggest that the polygon in question is a tenth the area that the classical theory says, so they're using a different polygons, and then mistakenly not making corrections for the non-rotating part of the light path. Apparently D&P regard the ceiling to be rotating in classic theory but not in relativity theory. Ouch...

OK, so they're deliberately using different polygons, which is legal, but then the time between mirrors J and F needs to be accounted for, and they assume it is the same in both directions, which is not true in the deliberately obfuscating frame in which they choose to frame what's going on. See the bold in the quote below, taken from the prior page:
Quote from: D&P
III. - Interpretation of the experimental results.
Let us point out initially the elements of the theories that we will apply here. Theclassical theory supposes, as one knows, that for the observer linked (fixed) to the disc,the speed of the light in a point of the revolving disc differs from the speed C of the lightin the laboratory, in a quantity equal to + /- v, if v represents in value the absolute projection of the linear velocity of the disk at the point considered on the platform, theelement of the path considered.
OK, so they've invented an observer that they've for some reason put on the disk (at location O, or 'S' on the picture on page 10, at the beam splitter at the bottom of the disk) despite the fact that no observation/measurement takes place there. Legal, but now they're using effectively an inertial frame for O in which the entire laboratory is moving. Do they always take account for this?  Of course not!
Also, note the contemptuous tone of D&P towards Mr Langevin. They want this not to work. These guys are trolling!

Quote from: D&P
We will use as the relativistic theory of these phenomena,that given by Mr. Langevin [2] in 1921 and recalled by him more recently [3]. In thisform of interpretation, the observer is pulled by the moving disc and is supposed to adopt a central time t which is that reported by the Galilean observer in which the center 0 is chosen on the platform as motionless. (Let us notice while passing that this selected center 0 is not necessarily the center C of rotation of the platform, but that it is an unspecified point, arbitrarily chosen on the disc.) The form which takes the fundamental invariant ds˛ implies an anisotropy in light propagation of which the speed varies with direction between C + ωr and C - ωr with the first order of approximation in ω. In these expressions, ω is the angular velocity of rotation of the platform, r is the distance from center 0 arbitrarily chosen, at the point of passage, on the disc, of the light ray considered. Mr. Largevin finds thus that duration dt of light course of length dl is given for a direction of circulation of the light by expression: dt = dl/C + 2ω dA/C˛
where dA is the area of a triangle with base dl and top selected arbitrary center 0. While integrating along the finished light course fixed to the revolving disc, and by taking account of the other direction of propagation, one can deduce the value from the displacement of the fringes ascribable to the course considered.
I want to note here that no consideration is made for the fact that the ceiling is moving at some velocity to the left in the frame of O in which they're doing their computations. Zero mention of this.
Light from point J takes longer to get to F than does light from F to J, just like in the frame of a train platform, light takes longer to go from tail to nose than it does to go from nose to tail. There's simply a different distance that needs to be traveled, and they don't account for this difference in their computation of δ.

I'm not even a physicist and I can see the errors in this description. Surely this paper was at some point peer reviewed, and ultimately discarded, which is why it today can only be found on denial sites like conspiracyoflight.

Also note: Relativity theory was never invoked. It was all Galilean relativity that was used. No contradiction. Lorentz factors, dilation etc. These factors would need to be addressed with very fast rotation, but not for this.

Quote
Mr Halc, so would you like to rephrase your statement that my words were "tosh"?
I would. Your words are deliberately but not particularly exceptionally tosh. You deniers need some new material.

This may be shocking to some sensitive viewers, but Einstein did not originate E=mc2, just thought you should know in case you were under any illusions to that effect.
Despite the pop association he has with that equation, it is indeed well known that he didn't originate it.It seems your beef with relativity is a personal one against Einstein, not necessarily against his theory. Now why is that? How is this comment otherwise relevant to the discussion?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 22:38:06
On the other hand, measuring the value of c can be (and has been) done in a rotating platform.
It almost always is. The platform is called the Earth.
It's a pity Centra can't accept this simple fact.
They're talking about measuring the one-way speed of light, which cannot be done at all
Again, I know that (and posted a video about it) , but Centra is ... not so well informed.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 21/01/2022 06:54:23
Are you talking about the experiment wiki cites?

"In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970s. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm (13 in).[27][28]"
Yeah, I guess it might be valid,

So, do you understand that the experiment which refers to 33cm is a verification (of enormous precision) of the effect of gravity on the rate of passage of time?
(And do you understand that the experiment is northing to do with movement? That's a different experiment)
They did both experiments in the same article so I don't know what your point is. Yeah, apparently gravity and motion effect time, but Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2022 08:46:51
They did both experiments in the same article so I don't know what your point is.
My point is that they are two different experiments.

Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.
You keep saying that, and when I ask you what else might explain it, you don't answer.

At best, you look childish.
Anyway, I'm not saying everything about relativity theory is wrong, but it can also be arrived at by classical methods, it's not hard to find articles about it.
Quote from: Centra on Yesterday at 12:52:26
There are articles showing that the same results can be obtained using classic theory and not involving the speed of light at all.
Prove it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 21/01/2022 12:52:15
Here the authors of of the book named at the end of this quote sum up the requirements for a valid theory about light, based on the experimental results to date. I don't think relativity can explain all these, could be wrong but don't think so. I doesn't seem like they all involve constant speed of light regardless of frame.
Quote
Any theory on the behavior of light on earth has to satisfy the following conditions

I. The speed of light as measured in different directions on the earth with respect to the surface of the earth does not show any measurable difference to the accuracy of the 1964 Jaseja d al Michelson and Morley type test.

2. Light that is generated on board a spinning disc and that is split and sent in opposing directions, with and against the direction of the spin of the disc, travels at a speed measured aboard the disc of c +-v against and with the direction of spin, respectively, where v is the peripheral speed of the disc in the path of the light. This was proven by the 1913 Sagnac experiment and by the 1993 Bilge et al experiment (to an accuracy of 1 in 10^20).

3. It was conformed by Wang in 2003 that light generated aboard an object travelling in straight-line uniform motion travels at a speed of c+v against the direction of motion of the object and travels at a speed of c-v with the direction of motion of the object. Measurement was made aboard and with respect to the object.

4. In cases (2) and (3) above, the light travels at a speed of c with respect to the fixed laboratory in which the experiment is held.

5. Light generated on the earth and sent around the globe travels faster westward than eastward relative to the surface of the earth The Michelson and Gale 1925 test and the Saburi et al 1976 test, as well as the Global Positioning System (GPS) for clock synchronization, prove this.

6. light coming from a distant star subtends an angle to the orbital path of the earth around the sun relative to a frame set in outer fixed space The orbital speed of the earth around the sun requires that a viewing telescope be tilted to allow for that orbital speed, just as is the case with falling rain being viewed from a moving vehicle, Bradley proved this. Airy proved that filling the barrel of a telescope with water did not affect the apparent position of a star as viewed from earth.

Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories
By Al Kelly
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 21/01/2022 12:54:28
Quote from: Centra on Today at 06:54:23
Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.
You keep saying that, and when I ask you what else might explain it, you don't answer.
You can't use Google? https://physics.bg/home/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/ (https://physics.bg/home/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/)
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2022 13:03:00
Quote from: Centra on Today at 06:54:23
Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.
You keep saying that, and when I ask you what else might explain it, you don't answer.
You can't use Google? https://physics.bg/home/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/ (https://physics.bg/home/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/)
It's not my job to use google; it's yours.
So... why didn't you?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2022 13:06:48
That nonsense you cited says this
"It becomes clear from this law that the space is stationary – that means “the vacuum is stationary”. "
How can that be?
So, all you have done is advertised that you can't recognise bullshit when you see it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 21/01/2022 13:17:06
This is nothing but a moronic  arm waving anti-relativity site.  One of their brilliant conclusions is "Therefore, we cannot have any physical equation where “time” appears".  Wow, the equation 50km/1hr = 50 km/hr is not real according to that site.  Seems off to me....
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 21/01/2022 16:13:16
That nonsense you cited says this
"It becomes clear from this law that the space is stationary – that means “the vacuum is stationary”. "
How can that be?
So, all you have done is advertised that you can't recognise bullshit when you see it.
I'm going to ignore you from now on, nothing personal. Me replying is just keeping the pointlessness going.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2022 17:27:53
Me replying is just keeping the pointlessness going.
Yes.
Just accept that you were wrong, it's quicker that way.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 21/01/2022 21:42:45
That site I posted the link to a couple posts back is really very informative, I think people should read it. They explain why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't show anything unusual and made everybody believe the constancy of light in all inertial frames fallacy. The way they set the experiment up guaranteed that all that would result is the average light speed from both directions combined and would always be the same no matter how many times the experiment was repeated or how large the apparatus. Think about it, they had the beams go in the direction of the earth's rotation and orbit around the sun and then bounce back in the other direction for the same distance, how could that make fringes? The velocity was added in one direction and then subtracted in the other, so all they could ever get was the average of the two. It's like if you did a Sagnac experiment but put a mirror on the back of the light source and bounced it back to where it started from so the same light beam went both ways, it would be completely pointless.

Later, Michelson did it correctly, with Gail and Pearson and got positive results, showing that light in the earth inertial frame is not constant at all, but changes with the motion of the frame. They did the same thing with GPS. In outer space it would be constant, but not on a planet or anywhere there's gravity. It's like I figured out myself in an earlier post, the speed is dictated by the largest mass in the vicinity, which would mean the largest gravity source. That's why in all those Sagnac type experiments the light behaves according to the lab frame, not any moving frame in the lab, it's locked to earth's gravity as its velocity controller and will behave the same no matter how you move something around with a light source and receptor on or in it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 21/01/2022 23:30:16
Experiments have been done since the Michelson-Morley one and to much greater precision. They support light having a constant speed in all reference frames.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 21/01/2022 23:35:42
That site I posted the link to a couple posts back is really very informative, I think people should read it.
It's a pseudoscience garbage site.
You can go to university sites and listen to physics classroom lectures given by real physicist if you want to be informed.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2022 00:23:26
I think people should read it.
It tells lies.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 22/01/2022 12:35:19
Experiments have been done since the Michelson-Morley one and to much greater precision. They support light having a constant speed in all reference frames.

All of the experiments involving rotating disks or the earth's rotating surface can be discounted on the grounds that they involved a rotating frame and in Einstein relativity rotating frames are considered absolute and not able to be considered at rest from any observation point within them, but the experiment quoted below involved straight line uniform motion so it cannot be be discounted as an inertial reference frame by Einstein relativity standards. The earth's rotation is also not the cause of the results.

Turns out light speed in a uniform straight line motion frame is not constant when in the vicinity of a steady gravitational force, in this case the earth's. The velocity of light is only constant relative to the dominant gravity source in the vicinity of its emission and Einstein never said that, he said the velocity of light is constant in all inertial frames, period. This experiment conclusively proves that statement, one of the two postulates of Special Relativity, to be false, no way around it. He came close to the truth, I'll give him that, but he missed a crucial factor entirely.
Quote
5. Conclusion

The travel-time difference of two counter-
propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional
to both the total length and the speed of the fiber,
regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform.
In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of
v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is
2vΔl/c2.

Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference
between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber
Ruyong Wang a, Yi Zhengb,*, Aiping Yaob,  Dean Langley c

Einstein himself stated:
Quote
“The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible.”
and
Quote
“If the results of the Miller experiments were to be confirmed, then relativity theory could not be maintained, since the experiments would then prove that, relative to the coordinate systems of the appropriate state of motion (the Earth), the velocity of light in a vacuum would depend upon the direction of motion. With this, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which forms one of the two foundation pillars on which the theory is based, would be refuted.” (Einstein, 1926).

That's exactly what the experiment quoted above proved, that the velocity of light in a vacuum (the inside of an optic fiber) depends upon the direction of motion relative to the coordinate systems of the appropriate state of motion (the Earth), Einstein's theory of relativity, thus, had one of its two foundation pillars pulled out from under it in the year 2003, 98 years after its publication. Apparently the wheels of science turn slowly.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 22/01/2022 13:20:15
That's exactly what the experiment quoted above proved, that the velocity of light in a vacuum (the inside of an optic fiber) depends upon the direction of motion relative
The inside of a fiber optic cable is glass, not a vacuum and the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.  Your ignorance and your pseudoscience sites don't change that.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2022 13:53:32
Einstein's theory of relativity, thus, had one of its two foundation pillars pulled out from under it in the year 2003, 98 years after its publication.
When he put the idea forward he would have known about the speed of light in a moving medium- that experiment had been done before he was born.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
The outcome of that experiment doesn't undermine relativity.
Nor has any subsequent experiment.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 22/01/2022 16:37:30
I'm afraid the situation is even worse for the Einstein Fan Club, because in 2014 the Lorentz Transformation was proven to be fatally flawed. The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble, sorry, Einstein Fan Club. Welcome to the post Einstein Relativity era, after the constancy of light in all inertial reference frames and the Lorentz Transformation time dilation and length contraction formulae were proven fatally flawed. The gravitational theories may be valid, I don't know at the moment, gravity does appear to dilate time, at least when using atomic clocks. Whether it's caused by spacetime curvature is debatable though. How could you prove or disprove that? It can't be accepted as fact, since it can't be definitively proved, but it's an interesting theory.

Quote
5. Conclusion

The LT equations are shown to be merely applicable for
events satisfying the basic light speed constancy equations
x = ct and x′ = ct′. The erroneous application of the LT
on co-local events (x′ = 0; t′ > 0, in K′, or x = 0; t > 0,
in K), or simultaneous events (t′ = 0; x′ ≠ 0, in K′, or
t = 0; x ≠ 0, in K), is shown to result in mathematical
contradictions and invalid predictions of time dilation, or
length contraction, respectively.

Critical Error in the Formulation of the Special Relativity
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 22/01/2022 17:40:27
That's exactly what the experiment quoted above proved, that the velocity of light in a vacuum (the inside of an optic fiber) depends upon the direction of motion relative
The inside of a fiber optic cable is glass, not a vacuum and the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.  Your ignorance and your pseudoscience sites don't change that.
Your first statement is true, I retract my statement that the inside of an optic fiber would qualify as a vacuum. I disagree with your second statement though, on the grounds that experimental results prove the contrary, that the speed of light is not constant in moving inertial frames relative to larger masses in the same vicinity, meaning within the gravity of said larger masses. You made an unfounded generality, that was naughty.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 22/01/2022 18:08:08
The same author I quoted earlier, Raswan Kassir, wrote another article the following year further discussing the flaws in Special Relativity which some may find interesting. Kassir appears to be a very perceptive scientist.

Quote
How the Special Relativity Violates Fundamental Physics Concepts

Abstract In this paper, it is shown that the classical addition of velocities is unavoidable, and follows naturally from an intrinsic physics concept. It is revealed that the relativistic addition of velocities and the Lorentz contraction simply lead to time transformations contradicting the Special Relativity predictions. Ironically, the Special Relativity time dilation prediction could be obtained from the classical addition of velocities and the Lorentz contraction, when the travel time of a two-way light trip is considered. A one-way (forward or backward) travel time leads to contradictions with the Special Relativity predictions. The special relativity time dilation factor could be obtained from the classical addition of velocities for a light trip in the transverse direction, but in contradiction with the speed of light postulate. Analyzed light travel time between relatively moving frame origins offers outcomes inconsistent with the Special Relativity.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2022 19:23:42
The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble,
No, it has not.

the Lorentz Transformation was proven to be fatally flawed.
If you think that is true, how do you explain why it gives the right answers?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2022 19:26:43
The gravitational theories may be valid, I don't know at the moment,
Well, the evidence says they are so, once again, we are in this territory.
People who disagree with reality get called lots of things, but "scientist" isn't one of them.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2022 23:09:35
Really, if that's all you have, is it worth posting?
Did you notice that it wasn't "all I had"?
It wasn't even the whole of my post.
And I disagree with you (obviously).  I think it is worth posting.  I think that just pointing out where someone has said something utterly stupid is valuable.
It forces them to consider the question of why they believe it.
And it avoids the potential  issue of him thinking it's our job to provide the evidence whereas, since he's the one making the extraordinary claim, he has to provide the extraordinary evidence.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 23/01/2022 03:10:48
And I disagree with you (obviously).  I think it is worth posting.  I think that just pointing out where someone has said something utterly stupid is valuable.
OK, I'll buy that. The comment was indeed utterly stupid, as evidenced by the fact that the edifice has in fact not even noticed this one more piece of uninformed writing suitable only for wiping ones backside. And trust me, a paper that actually found a problem would get serious attention since there are some real scientists who would love to see said edifice crumble.

Quote
It forces them to consider the question of why they believe it.
The writer of the paper lists himself as "Mechanical dept" in someplace in Beirut, so I don't think he has a physics reputation in need of protection. I don't think most of the authors believe their own tripe. It doesn't read like stupidity. It reads like deliberate salesmanship of a defective product. ​They write such papers because there is such a rich demand for such work from Centra and his ilk, fueling internet traffic to such sites that prey on them.

Quote
And it avoids the potential  issue of him thinking it's our job to provide the evidence whereas, since he's the one making the extraordinary claim, he has to provide the extraordinary evidence.
But of course you're not going to get that. His only evidence is deliberately misleading papers. He admits to no knowledge of his own on the subject. No, he's in it to get a reaction from us, and he is getting richly rewarded it seems. I'm guilty of it myself.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2022 10:50:15
It's always difficult to know how to deal with trolls.
If there was a satisfactory solution, we would be free of them.
My view is that there should be a 3 strike policy.
The third time they repeat something that's plainly untrue, even after it has been explained that it's wrong, we should simply ban them. They aren't here to learn, and they are not helping others to do so.

However, I also recognise that in some cases, it's impossible to explain why something is untrue, simply because the claim is meaningless- it redefines words like "energy" or whatever but doesn't say what definition they are using.
Here's a case in point:
An anti-photon is a photon turned through 180 degrees and with momentum encoded with added points of space instead of with left-out points.

The author has repeatedly failed to say what he thinks "added points of space instead of with left-out points" actually means.
You can't give a detailed rebuttal in that case.
We typically rebut an assertion by pointing out the truth instead- for example
The inside of a fiber optic cable is glass, not a vacuum

But when someone says something meaningless like  "February is purple" then trying to disprove the assertion is harder.
Since it has no meaning, you can not prove that it is false by the usual method .
You can't disprove it by saying that Thursday is green, or whatever.

All you can do is point out that it simply isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, true.
And I think that "The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble," is just as meaningless, in the real world, as "February is purple".
He could have made a less clearly absurd statement like " the whole edifice should have collapsed...".
That's easy to respond to, by pointing out that it hasn't and  asking why he thinks it is still here.

On the other hand, in some cases there's a genuine lack of understanding on the part of the OP.
They just haven't done their homework.
In those cases, a clear explanation of what current science actually says can set them straight.
And I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you (and others) who do that. I try to- it's clear that I do it better in chemistry than in physics.

Even if it doesn't set the original poster on the right path, at least it puts the real science out there for anyone who comes across the site looking for information.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 23/01/2022 14:26:35
I'll have to find a mathematician somewhere to check Kassir's article and see if his math checks out. What if it does though? What if the Lorentz Transformation really does only work if both frames stay at the zero point? That would certainly be a glitch.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 23/01/2022 15:26:43
in 2014 the Lorentz Transformation was proven to be fatally flawed. The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble, sorry, Einstein Fan Club. Welcome to the post Einstein Relativity era, after the constancy of light in all inertial reference frames and the Lorentz Transformation time dilation and length contraction formulae were proven fatally flawed. The gravitational theories may be valid, I don't know at the moment, gravity does appear to dilate time, at least when using atomic clocks. Whether it's caused by spacetime curvature is debatable though. How could you prove or disprove that? It can't be accepted as fact, since it can't be definitively proved, but it's an interesting theory.

Quote
Critical Error in the Formulation of the Special Relativity
Any clod can upload a pretty paper asserting no end of nonsense onto the net. This guy apparently chooses to attack not GR (which receives regular valid challenges), but special relativity, the sort of kindergarten of the theory, thus sinking any employment prospects he might have in the field.
I no doubt can point out errors in the paper. These denial clods never know even the basics, as is evidenced by
every
single
paper
referenced by the last site you referenced.

Mind you, I cannot demonstrate the mistakes to you any more than I can demonstrate them to my cat. But SR is quite simple and there's no doubt I will find mistakes..

I'll have to find a mathematician somewhere to check Kassir's article and see if his math checks out.
No need. As I said, he's not even familiar with what they teach in the first hour of relativity class. It fails right out the gate, before even getting to eqn (1).
Quote from: Kassir
2. Temporal Events Analysis
Consider two inertial frames of reference, K(x,y,z,t), and K'(x',y,'z',t'), in translational relative motion with parallel corresponding axes, and let their origins be aligned along the overlapped -x and -x′axes. Let v be the relative motion velocity in the -xx′ direction. K and K′ coordinate systems are assumed to be overlapping at the time t - t' = 0; so as event coordinates in K and K′ can be considered as space and time intervals measured from the initial zero coordinates of the overlapped-frames event.
So far so good. Two frames with relative linear velocity v along the x axis, sharing a common origin event. But it goes terribly wrong already at the next sentence.

Quote from: Kassir
2.1. Arbitrary Non-origin Events
Let’s suppose that at the frames overlapping instant, an event E1(x',0,0,0) [E1(x,0,0,0)] takes place at a distance x′ with respect to K′ origin (x with respect to K origin) on the x-x′ axis.
The assumption this guy is making is seemingly a Newtonian one, that the two frames share a common x axis, but the x axis and the x' axis share only one common event, which is the origin.
They would share a common axis given a Galilean transformation as Newton would have done, but not given a Lorentz transformation as relativity demands.

So let's count the errors:
1) “overlapping instant”
A given ‘instant’ (a moment in time) only overlaps at the origin event, so while there is an overlapping event (0,0,0,0) and even an overlapping plane (x=0,y,z,t=0) since y and z are invariant between two frames whose relative motion is only along the x axis, there is not an overlapping instant.
2) “an event E1(x',0,0,0) [E1(x,0,0,0)]”
He’s given the coordinates of two very different events and given them the same label E1, and proceeds with the assumption that they’re the same event. If E1 is at x at t=0 in the K frame, then relativity of simultaneity says that that same event will occur at some nonzero time t’ in the K’ frame, but Kassir incorrectly puts it at coordinate t’=0. He’s defined an absurdity and then declares the theory to be inconsistent when absurd results ensue. I didn't bother reading any further. This guy fails the easiest questions in the relativity class.
3) “the x-x’ axis”
which seems to be the base assumption upon which the other mistakes are made. The x and the x’ axes are not the same axis.

After thinking about it, I retract my comment about this being a deliberate mistake for the purpose of gaining visibility on the denial sites. The error is too obvious and it reeks of somebody who's instincts are absolutist. Kassir is really that uneducated/stupid. The ones that do it deliberately at least bury the mistake in a bit more complexity, not right in the opening remarks with a blatant error in a trivial description. Kassir actually believes relativity is inconsistent, so unlike the rest of us, when he finds a mistake he immediately assumes it is a problem with the theory and not with his understanding.
This is not unlike the way that you immediately assume all these problems you find on the net are valid evidence against the theory and not fallacious application of the theory in the papers that find a home only on the crank denialist sites, 100% of which have such errors.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 24/01/2022 13:45:59
Let us suppose that a light emitter/receptor is traveling toward a mirror in a stationary frame at a speed of 100,000 km/s and emits a beam toward a mirror when it is 300,000 from it. In the time it took for the beam to reach the mirror the emitter unit would have moved 100,000 toward it. On the return trip from the mirror, since the beam is moving at 3 times the speed of the unit, they will meet when the unit has moved anther 50,000 km toward the mirror and the light has traveled 150,000 km from the mirror in the opposite direction. From the stationary mirror point of view, the beam would have traveled a total of 450,000 km in 1.5 seconds, 300,000 km from the emitter to the mirror and 150,000 km from the mirror back to the emitter.

A timer on the emitter/receptor would have shown that time because that was the actual time taken, the timer didn't know it had been catching up with the beam on its way to the mirror or that it had been closing in on the front end of the beam after it reflected back toward it, all it did was record the actual time elapsed between the emission and reception of the light beam and that time was the same in both frames. There was no observer traveling with the unit to think anything about the light beam, the only observer was in the stationary frame and everything made sense to him based on the postulate that the motion of a light emitter has no effect on its speed, no alterations of time or length in the emitter/receptor frame had to be invoked by the observer to explain anything appearing unusual.

Now let us consider the emitter/receptor to be stationary, with the observer, and the mirror to be moving toward it at 100,000 km/s. The light was traveling at 3 times the speed of  the mirror so this time the mirror would have been hit by the beam after the beam had traveled 225,000 km and the mirror had traveled 75,000 km. The beam would then have to travel back the same 225,000 km to reach the receptor, for a round trip distance of 450,000 km and the same elapsed time of 1.5 seconds. The observer didn't need to invoke any time or length alterations in the mirror frame to explain any apparent anomalies.

In both of the preceding scenarios, both of the frames in relative motion to each other were involved in the velocity of the light beam, so that was an example of real velocity. Now if both the light emitter/receptor and the mirror had been in the same frame then the illusion of velocity could have occurred. The only difference would be that you put the mirror in the same frame, so why would that change the situation so drastically that you would feel the need to alter time and length in whichever frame you considered to be in motion? Does a mirror have that much power?

This brings up another question, what if you have a mirror in the same frame with the emitter in addition to one in the other frame? We just saw that no time/length alterations were required when the mirror was in the other frame, so what if you had two emitters in one of the frames and had a mirror in each frame and both emitters fired at their respective mirrors at the same time? Now Einstein has a serious conundrum, because if you alter time in one frame or the other to make the apparent velocity of the light beam reflecting off the mirror in the same frame with the emitters appear to be corrected, it would obviously throw the apparent velocity of the other beam which reflects off the mirror in the other frame out of correct perceived velocity, because that one never required any correcting in the first place. Timers in each frame would show different times for the same light beam to travel the same distance, good luck resolving that.

Notice how the same times were involved even though in one case we considered the the emitter to be moving and "catching up with" and "closing in on" the light beam and in the reciprocal case we considered the emitter not to move in relation to the beam at all, just the mirror, and yet the times and light speed worked out exactly the same. That shows that the speed of light can in fact be independent of the motion of the emitter and it doesn't cause any frame relativity problems. An observer in the emitter frame can perceive the light beam to be shooting out from the
stationary emitter and at the same time an observer in the other frame can perceive the emitter to be moving in relation to the light beam and everything still works out normally in regard to the speed of the light beam for both observers, and with no time/length alterations in either frames. All that changes is that in your own frame you consider things in the other frame to be moving in relation to the light beam and the light beam to be moving in relation to things in your frame, that's the real relativity of light.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 24/01/2022 14:57:41
I presume from your lack of comment that you concede the quackery of every single bit of negative evidence to which you've linked thus far.

Let us suppose that a light emitter/receptor is traveling toward a mirror in a stationary frame at a speed of 100,000 km/s and emits a beam toward a mirror when it is 300,000 from it. In the time it took for the beam to reach the mirror the emitter unit would have moved 100,000 toward it. On the return trip from the mirror, since the beam is moving at 3 times the speed of the unit, they will meet when the unit has moved anther 50,000 km toward the mirror and the light has traveled 150,000 km from the mirror in the opposite direction. From the stationary mirror point of view, the beam would have traveled a total of 450,000 km in 1.5 seconds, 300,000 km from the emitter to the mirror and 150,000 km from the mirror back to the emitter.

A timer on the emitter/receptor would have shown that time because that was the actual time taken, the timer didn't know it had been catching up with the beam on its way to the mirror or that it had been closing in on the front end of the beam after it reflected back toward it, all it did was record the actual time elapsed between the emission and reception of the light beam and that time was the same in both frames. There was no observer traveling with the unit to think anything about the light beam, the only observer was in the stationary frame and everything made sense to him based on the postulate that the motion of a light emitter has no effect on its speed, no alterations of time or length in the emitter/receptor frame had to be invoked by the observer to explain anything appearing unusual.

Now let us consider the emitter/receptor to be stationary, with the observer, and the mirror to be moving toward it at 100,000 km/s. The light was traveling at 3 times the speed of  the mirror so this time the mirror would have been hit by the beam after the beam had traveled 225,000 km and the mirror had traveled 75,000 km. The beam would then have to travel back the same 225,000 km to reach the receptor, for a round trip distance of 450,000 km and the same elapsed time of 1.5 seconds. The observer didn't need to invoke any time or length alterations in the mirror frame to explain any apparent anomalies.
There is an anomaly/contradiction.  A clock at the mirror, stationary in the first frame gets hit at time t=1 after the emitter pulse takes a second to go the light second. But relative to the emitter frame, that same clock would measure ľ seconds, half the time the beam takes to make the round trip. The clock can only log one objective value, so this constitutes a self-inconsistency with your description.

SR says that if the numbers are as you say in the designated stationary coordinate system, then relative to the emitter/receptor coordinate system, the mirror is hit 212132 km away from the stationary emitter after the mirror travels 70711 km. The mirror clock reads exactly 1 second when hit, and 1/3 seconds at time of emission. The round trip time from emission to detection is exactly √2 seconds.

Quote
The only difference would be that you put the mirror in the same frame
The motion of the mirror matters not to the elapsed time measured in either frame. It only matters where it is when the reflection event occurs. The motion of the mirror would affect light frequency detected at receptor, and also would affect the clock riding with it, so the objective value of 1 at reflection time presumes it is stationary in and synced to the first frame.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 24/01/2022 15:40:11
Let us suppose that a light emitter/receptor
I'm curious, why would you try to argue against a complicated, well tested and accepted theory on a subject you know little about?  What is your motivation?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/01/2022 18:21:30
Let us suppose that a light emitter/receptor
I'm curious, why would you try to argue against a complicated, well tested and accepted theory on a subject you know little about?  What is your motivation?
Tha6t's probably one of the most interesting posts in this thread.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 24/01/2022 19:34:09
Okay, I admit that last post didn't actually make sense. What really happens is that everything is exactly the same when viewed as the emitter being stationary. The light beam actually appears to move slower relative to the emitter on the way out and faster on the way back. The only difference is the mirror seems to move toward the emitter at 100,000 km/s. Why does it work that way? Because the speed of light on the earth's surface is constant in a direction 90 degrees to an imaginary line from the emitter to the center of the earth, relative to that line. If the beam goes at a different angle then the varying gravity intensity will alter the speed, but most experiments are done with light traveling parallel to the ground so light speed is practically constant. That line I mentioned doesn't move with the earth's rotation, it's like the earth's core is frozen in place relative to the light source at the time of emission.

There's no other scenario that makes sense, you can't have time, length or distance changing depending on which frame to choose to view a scenario from, it actually makes more sense for light speed to be relative to the strongest gravity source where the inertial frames are located. Apparently light and gravity are closely related, same as mass and energy are related. I shouldn't have let myself get off track with that last post, it just shows how weird things can get when you stray from the reality of gravity source based light speed. In outer space I'm not sure how it would work in the weak gravity of distant stars.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/01/2022 19:59:43
There's no other scenario that makes sense, you can't have time, length or distance changing depending on which frame to choose to view a scenario from,
Yes you can.
And we do.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 24/01/2022 20:25:11
There's no other scenario that makes sense, you can't have time, length or distance changing depending on which frame to choose to view a scenario from,
Yes you can.
And we do.
I'm afraid you can't, not on earth, the law of gravity source constancy of light must be obeyed. Why didn't Michelson-Morley find significant fringes? Just too little rotation of the earth to show anything substantial in a crude apparatus like that.They didn't have anything sensitive enough to detect earth's rotation in those days. Of course, we do now, which is why we now know light speed varies with motion relative to earth's gravity source. That's why they had to devise the "coordinate time grid", seen as non-rotating and linked to the earth's center considered as stationary. That's exactly the same as saying time, and therefore light speed on earth, is relative to earths gravity source seen as non-rotating and centered on the earth's core. They as much as admitted that as being a scientific fact when they realized they needed that rime coordinate grid to keep time synchronized.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 24/01/2022 21:03:21
They didn't have anything sensitive enough to detect earth's rotation in those days. Of course, we do now, which is why we now know light speed varies with motion relative to earth's gravity source.

You mean like this? I think a sensitivity on the order of 10-17 is plenty good enough: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/01/2022 21:12:43
They didn't have anything sensitive enough to detect earth's rotation in those days.
That may well take the prize for the stupidest comment yet. That's quite a challenge in a thread like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials

Obviously, they didn't need to detect the rotation or the earth- they already knew about it. They also knew about the Earth's orbit round the Sun.
And the MM experiment was certainly sensitive enough to detect the effect they expected from it. If it hadn't been that sensitive, there would have been no point to the experiment).
The important thing is that, though they knew exactly what they expected to find, they actually found no fringe shift.
That's how they realised that there was no ether.

Of course, we do now, which is why we now know light speed varies with motion relative to earth's gravity source.
That's meaningless.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 24/01/2022 22:21:56
They didn't have anything sensitive enough to detect earth's rotation in those days. Of course, we do now, which is why we now know light speed varies with motion relative to earth's gravity source.

You mean like this? I think a sensitivity on the order of 10-17 is plenty good enough: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
I don't really know what they were doing in that experiment, just looked like bouncing some beams around and rotating the apparatus various ways, they didn't use two way beams, just one way beams bouncing at different angles. Maybe that's not a good way to do it if they got null results It's easy to find pages about detecting earth's rotation with ring lasers so obviously light is moving at different speeds based on earth's rotation right there.

Actually in my other post that doesn't seem to make sense at first, I showed that light can be seen to move at the same speed from the viewpoint of different frames in relative motion by simply changing the perceived distances between things when light related events occur. How do we know perceived distance isn't altered between frames rather than time or length of objects? How do we know what distances between things are? By how much time it takes for something to go between them. Perception of distances could be altered based on light as easily as time could.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 24/01/2022 22:32:10
Maybe that's not a good way to do it if they got null results

Or, you know, they actually knew what they were doing and got null results because special relativity is correct. If you think there is an error in their methodology, please point out what it is.

It's easy to find pages about detecting earth's rotation with ring lasers so obviously light is moving at different speeds based on earth's rotation right there.

Not necessarily. It depends on the specifics of the experiment. What was the methodology?

How do we know perceived distance isn't altered between frames rather than time or length of objects?

Because those distances and times can actually be measured.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/01/2022 22:50:44
I don't really know what they were doing in that experiment,
That is precisely the point we keep making.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 25/01/2022 08:37:38
Here's the glaring flaw in the Lorentz transformation, it can't work on two beams in opposite directions at the same time. Einsteiin tried to get around that by suggesting that clocks on opposite ends of a moving rocket which fired two beams from the center to both ends were not synchronized, as if that makes the slightest sense. Explain how two different time zones on one rocket makes sense? It's not a rotating rocket either, it's moving straight in uniform motion, which is exactly the same as it being stationary. Would it make sense for two stationary clocks to show different times just because they're separated? Apparently not, since Einstein's suggested method for synchronizing two clocks in a stationary frame is to send light beams back and forth and it takes the same time. They would have to see both of their clocks synchronized but the other frame clock showing two different times.

You cannot have two clocks suddenly going out of synch just because somebody passes by and looks at them, and you can't have them showing the same times when the frame is considered stationary and different times when considered moving, it's completely ludicrous. You can't even make it work by saying the person in the other frame just sees them out of synch but they're really not, because the light from the two clocks takes the same amount of time to reach the observer's eyes when the rocket is right in front of him. They would have to actually be out of synch no matter which frame you observed them from. Also, by the postulate of inertial frame reciprocity, people at each end of the rocket would have to see a single clock in the other frame as showing two different times, which Einstein never even postulated could occur. hey would presumably see their own clocks synchronized but the other frame clock showing different times. Bob would yell over to Jim and say "what time is it on that clock over there in the other frame" and Jim would say something other than what Bob sees with his own eyes, it's preposterous.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/01/2022 08:45:51
Here's the glaring flaw in the Lorentz transformation, it can't work on two beams in opposite directions at the same time.
Prove it.
as if that makes the slightest sense.
It does.
"synchronisation" is a local thing.
Anyone watching a football game will be aware of that.
If you are far from the action, there is a distinct delay between seeing the ball kicked, and hearing it.
You cannot have two clocks suddenly going out of synch just because somebody passes by and looks at them
Nobody said they did.

The problem isn't that it doesn't make sense. The problem is that it doesn't make sense to you.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 25/01/2022 09:00:44
With the dual beam laser rocket and the lightning train thought experiments, Einstein postulated that time would be dilated in one direction and simultaneously contracted in the other, or at least dilated to a different extent. Explain how that's possible. Don't just say "oh it's possible alright, because Einstein said", actually explain how. Pretty sure you can't have time dilated by different amounts on two ends of a moving object, presumably changing smoothly as you go from end to end, requiring a varying equation along the way. Where's the variable Lorentz transformation equation based on where you are from the middle of a moving frame? The Lorentz transformation provides a single time dilation factor for an entire moving object, so is it wrong or is the thought experiment proposed solution wrong? They can't both be right.

This shows that Einstein put forward two contradicting postulates, the relativity of simultaneity and the Lorentz transformation time dilation. If clocks at each end of a moving object show two different times, in accordance with the relativity of simultaneity, they can't also show the same times, in accordance with the Lorentz transformation which provides a single dilation factor for an entire moving object, not a range of them from end to end.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 25/01/2022 13:16:13
clocks on opposite ends of a moving rocket which fired two beams from the center to both ends were not synchronized, as if that makes the slightest sense.
Your personal incredulity is noted, but that does not count as the slightest evidence against it. People had similar incredulity that the world was round, but that also didn't change the fact of the matter.

With the dual beam laser rocket and the lightning train thought experiments, Einstein postulated that time would be dilated in one direction and simultaneously contracted in the other, or at least dilated to a different extent.
He postulated no such thing.

Quote
Pretty sure you can't have time dilated by different amounts on two ends of a moving object, presumably changing smoothly as you go from end to end, requiring a varying equation along the way.
For an inertial object, relative to any inertial frame in which the object is moving, the clocks anywhere on the object are dilated the exact same amount. But for an accelerating object, it's pretty much as you describe, even from the point of view of the guy on the rocket. This has been demonstrated.

Quote
This shows that Einstein put forward two contradicting postulates, the relativity of simultaneity and the Lorentz transformation time dilation.
Neither of those are postulates. The postulates are simply "physics is the same in any frame" and frame invariant speed of light. Those two postulates don't contradict each other, and technically it is a single postulate since if the 2nd wasn't true, the first wouldn't be either. The things you mention can be derived directly from the one postulate.

Quote
Explain how that's possible. ... actually explain how.
Your personal motivation, incredulity, and biases prevent that (especially the motivation one). As I said above, I can no more explain it to you than I can to my cat. The things you refuse to accept follow rather trivially from the actual postulate above. I can explain it to BC for instance, but I can't explain it to you.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/01/2022 13:22:42
With the dual beam laser rocket and the lightning train thought experiments, Einstein postulated that
How did Einstein ( 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) come up with a thought experiment involving lasers which didn't exist before 1960?

Are you deliberately posting nonsense?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 25/01/2022 13:44:32
Okay Einstein didn't say time dilated by different amounts on the two ends of a moving object with two light beams going in opposite directions, that would mean the clocks were moving at different rates. What he did say is that they would move at the same rate but show different times. He didn't say "lasers", he probably said lanterns but I was just using a modern equivalent which works better because the light is all in one beam. He might not even have used the rocket scenario but it's in videos showing Einstein's theory.

However you present the thought experiment, how can you justify clocks at each end showing different times when there are two beams in opposite directions but if there was only one beam they would both show the same time? The only reason the two clocks were made to show different times was to try to get around the flaw in the Lorentz transformation that it can't correct the speeds of two beams in opposite directions at the same time.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 25/01/2022 13:59:11
I'll condense my point to a simple question, would the clocks on the rocket look the same if there was only one laser beam going forward as when there were two going in opposite directions? How would you explain the two clocks showing different times if you answer that question with a yes, does the Lorentz transformation state that clocks in a moving frame would be behind those in a stationary frame by different amounts depending on where they're positioned in the moving frame?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 25/01/2022 15:29:22

From the article:ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. EINSTEIN, June 30, 1905

Quote
Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:—

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest. (

b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a deﬁnite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of the rod.”

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a)—we will call it “the length of the rod in the moving system”— must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod. The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.” This we shall determine on the
basis of our two principles, and we shall ﬁnd that it diﬀers from l.

Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a deﬁnite position.We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are
placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore
synchronous in the stationary system.”

We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time ta, let it be reﬂected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time tA′. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we ﬁnd that

tB − tA = rAB/c − v
and
t′A − tB = rAB/c + v

where rAB denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.

Question: what is "c + v" in the preceding quote? How can c + v even exist when c is supposedly the maximum v in the universe? How, then, did Einstein add the v of the moving rod to c?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Eternal Student on 25/01/2022 16:19:58
Hi.

Question: what is "c + v" in the preceding quote?
Sorry, no idea.
The text states the following:
t′A − tB = rAB/c + v
Which might inlcude a mis-print or something undefned.  tA' was described but not t'A.
The text also refers to something established in S1  but we don't have  S1  printed, so I've no idea what that was.

Sorry.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 25/01/2022 16:43:56
Question: what is "c + v" in the preceding quote? How can c + v even exist when c is supposedly the maximum v in the universe? How, then, did Einstein add the v of the moving rod to c?

The equations aren't calculating a velocity. What's more (assuming the equations are written correctly in this transcript), order of operations says that you do division before you do addition, so you divide the length of the rod by the speed of light and then you add the velocity.

Looks like Halc came to the same conclusion.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 25/01/2022 17:50:16
Looks pretty straight forward to me, the equations are exactly as I showed, a fraction with rAB on top and c+v on the bottom, anyone can easily download the article pdf. According to his description, the people moving with the rod would be able to tell they're in inertial motion just by shooting a light beam back and forth and comparing the times, which Einstein says will be different, much like the Sagnac effect, but with straight line uniform motion, the time for the beam to go from A to B would be longer than from B to A, nothing ambiguous about it.

I haven't seen anyone explain how the Lorentz transformation can correct for two opposite direction light beams yet either. I assume nobody will say that clocks on each end of a rocket, in uniform motion, not accelerating, would show different times if beams were shot to the front and back simultaneously, because then they would have to say that the same clocks would also show the same different times when there were no beams involved, just a rocket moving by in uniform motion.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/01/2022 18:33:27
Okay Einstein didn't say time dilated by different amounts on the two ends of a moving object with two light beams going in opposite directions, that would mean the clocks were moving at different rates. What he did say is that they would move at the same rate but show different times. He didn't say "lasers", he probably said lanterns but I was just using a modern equivalent which works better because the light is all in one beam. He might not even have used the rocket scenario but it's in videos showing Einstein's theory.
So, you are finally getting to grips with the fact that it's the ideas and the experimental data that matter not the man himself.
That's progress.
The reason it's important is that it pretty much destroys the silly idea of any "
Einstein Fan Club
.

So, do you now accept that's nonsense?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 25/01/2022 18:40:47
Looks pretty straight forward to me, the equations are exactly as I showed, a fraction with rAB on top and c+v on the bottom, anyone can easily download the article pdf.
Seem straight forward to you because you apparently do not understand arithmetic.  Your quoted paper does not say c + v.  That is like saying that 1/2 + 1 means 1 over 2 + 1.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Eternal Student on 25/01/2022 19:01:12
Hi.

Looks pretty straight forward to me, the equations are exactly as I showed, a fraction with rAB on top and c+v on the bottom
Maybe, I haven't seen the original and my German isn't good enough to translate anyhting like this.   Einstein didn't have modern computers and he certainly didn't create that pdf document.   Someone typed it up or scanned in it and presumably translated it from German.  There do seem to be some minor errors.     See the   t'A as opposed to tA' discussed earlier.
Halc and Kryptid are right, as written the   c+v   does not have to be the denominator.

More generally,  Einstein revised and developed his theory of special and especially general realtivity in little stages - sometimes just presenting arguments for why something couldn't be the way it was described with existing physics like a simple Gallilean transformation between two frames of reference.   I'm guessing that this section uses some ideas from a Gallilean transformation to show that not everything would work out.   To say that another way:  It's unlikely that the finished version of Special relativity is being discussed here, just some indication that the Gallilean transformation might fail.

....the time for the beam to go from A to B would be longer than from B to A, nothing ambiguous about it....
You seem to suggest that measuring the one-way speed of light is a simple task.  There have been other threads about this.  It's not easy.    The generally accepted view is that it can't be done, you always have to measure the two-way speed of light by setting up something like a mirror to reflect the light back to the source where it was emitted etc.

Best Wishes.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 25/01/2022 19:25:55
Looks pretty straight forward to me, the equations are exactly as I showed, a fraction with rAB on top and c+v on the bottom, anyone can easily download the article pdf.
Seem straight forward to you because you apparently do not understand arithmetic.  Your quoted paper does not say c + v.  That is like saying that 1\2 + 1 means 1 over 2 + 1.
Actually working it out from the paper changes my mind. It is a poor translation error. rAB is a length, and dividing that by c gives something in units of seconds. You can't add velocity to time since the units don't match, and the math works out when interpreted as rAB / (c ± v).
As krypid correctly points out, we're computing the time it takes (in some other frame) for light to travel the length of the moving rod.

That said, relativity very much allows valid expressions of speeds higher than c.  Given a fast enough ship, I can get to Betelgeuse before I die, which is over 600 light years in maybe 20 years, which is a proper velocity of over 30c, despite my not moving at that velocity relative to any inertial frame. The theory doesn't forbid the expression of such values.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 25/01/2022 20:18:07
Actually working it out from the paper changes my mind. It is a poor translation error. rAB is a length, and dividing that by c gives something in units of seconds. You can't add velocity to time since the units don't match, and the math works out when interpreted as rAB / (c ± v).
As krypid correctly points out, we're computing the time it takes (in some other frame) for light to travel the length of the moving rod.

That said, relativity very much allows valid expressions of speeds higher than c.  Given a fast enough ship, I can get to Betelgeuse before I die, which is over 600 light years in maybe 20 years, which is a proper velocity of over 30c, despite my not moving at that velocity relative to any inertial frame. The theory doesn't forbid the expression of such values.
What Einstein was saying with that equation is that if the motion of the moving frame with the rod and clocks was, say, 100,000 km/s that the time for the beam to travel from A to B would be the length of the rod, say 1 km, divided by (300,000 km/s minus 100,000 km/s = 200,000 km/s) = 0.000005 second, and the time from B back to A would be 1 km divided by (300,000 km/s + 100,000 km/s=400,000 km/s) = 0.0000025 second, thus, they would conclude that the two clocks were not synchronized, because if they had been then both ways would have taken the same time, 0.0000033... second. They would think that clock A was running at half the speed of clock B.

The obvious problem there is that it should in fact have taken the same amount of time both ways, because it should have been exactly the same as if they had been stationary. So Einstein violated his own postulate that "1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not aﬀected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion."  He assumed that the light would behave as if it was in the stationary frame and the moving frame was traveling as if it were catching up with the beam when the beam went forward to clock B and like it was closing in on it on its way back to clock A.

Logically, it should actually have been the other way around, the moving observers should have seen the two clocks as synchronized and the stationary observers should have seen them as running at different speeds, if anybody should have.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 25/01/2022 21:20:28
What Einstein was saying with that equation is that if the motion of the moving frame with the rod and clocks was
The rod is moving relative to the chosen frame. The clocks (four of them?) are not moving in this frame, and are in sync relative to this frame. You didn't explicitly say otherwise (yet), but I want to be clear. It isn't a 'moving frame' except relative to the proper frame of the rod.
Quote
say, 100,000 km/s that the time for the beam to travel from A to B would be the length of the rod, say 1 km, divided by (300,000 km/s minus 100,000 km/s = 200,000 km/s) = 0.000005 second, and the time from B back to A would be 1 km divided by (300,000 km/s + 100,000 km/s=400,000 km/s) = 0.0000025 second
Right.
Quote
thus, they would conclude that the two clocks were not synchronized
The clocks are presumed synchronized in the frame in question. It really does take light twice as long to go 4/3 km as it does to go 2/3 km.
Quote
because if they had been then both ways would have taken the same time, 0.0000033... second.
No, not for a moving rod. That would be true only for a stationary 1 km object, and there's no stationary 1 km object in any frame in your example.  The rod has a proper length of about 1.06 km in your example to get the numbers you quote.
Quote
They would think that clock A was running at half the speed of clock B.
Nonsense. If that were true, a repeat of the experiment would yield different times to go from one end to the other, not .000005 and .0000025 seconds again. And the measurement can only be done once, after which the rod has passed by the clock. Maybe they can time multiple identical rods going by.
Quote
The obvious problem there is that it should in fact have taken the same amount of time both ways, because it should have been exactly the same as if they had been stationary.
Once again, nonsense. The emission and detection events one way are twice as far apart as the emission and detection events the other way. Light cannot take the same time to go two distances, one twice the other.
The clocks are on the ends of the rod, which is moving, there are two in the stationary frame and two in the moving frame, on the ends of the rod, you seem to have difficulty comprehending that. The light was emitted inside the moving rod frame  Did you even read Einstein's article? Apparently not. I won't bother pointing out the rest of your mistakes, it would take too long. Let's just say, when you start out that wrong, the rest is not going to get any righter.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 26/01/2022 06:24:11
So why would the observers moving with the moving rod find the two clocks not to be synchronous? Does light travel at different speeds in a moving frame, slower in the direction of motion and faster opposite the direction of motion? That's exactly what Einstein said. I know others can't speak for Einstein but everyone who has been posting here seems to support his theories so maybe you would like to help him out by explaining how that makes sense?
Quote
We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time tA, let it be reﬂected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time tA′. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we ﬁnd that

tB − tA = rAB/c − v
and
t′A − tB = rAB/c + v

where rAB denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 26/01/2022 12:34:19
So why would the observers moving with the moving rod find the two clocks not to be synchronous?
Because they were explicitly synced to the first frame, not the frame of the rod:
"We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system"

Quote
Does light travel at different speeds in a moving frame, slower in the direction of motion and faster opposite the direction of motion?
No. That would violate both postulates of the theory, and lacking an empirical test for it, no such anisotropy can be demonstrated.

Quote
That's exactly what Einstein said.
The part you just quoted just says that the two observers in different frames would find the pair of moving clocks to be synchronized and not synchronized relative to their respective frames. It is an empirical illustration and quantification of relativity of simultaneity and little else.

Usually tests are done with one clock so sync issues are avoided.  Shine a light the length of a rod and reflect it back, timing the round trip.  If there was a 300 km rod with such a clock and mirror at opposite ends, light should take 2 msec to make the round trip if light moved at constant speed in both directions. But if it moved at say 150000 km/sec in one direction and 450000 km/sec in the other, it would take 2msec to move one way and 2/3 sec the other way, for a total of 2 2/3 msec, which would be empirically different than the 2 msec that Galilean relativity demands. At slower speeds the difference would be less, but measurable nevertheless with accurate enough devices, and as has been pointed out above, it has been measured to be frame invariant to at least 17 digits.
This falsifies the Newtonian view of absolute time and space that you seem to naively have been pushing. The view was falsified well before Einstein came along and first providing a complete theory to replace the one they knew was wrong. Parts of the theory came from earlier works by Poincare, Lorentz, Minkowski, and others.
Personally, I think the Lorentz transformation would better be named the Poincare transformation who originated the current symmetric form.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 26/01/2022 13:48:53
Shine a light the length of a rod and reflect it back, timing the round trip.  If there was a 300 km rod with such a clock and mirror at opposite ends, light should take 2 msec to make the round trip if light moved at constant speed in both directions. But if it moved at say 150000 km/sec in one direction and 450000 km/sec in the other, it would take 2msec to move one way and 2/3 sec the other way, for a total of 2 2/3 msec, which would be empirically different than the 2 msec that Galilean relativity demands. At slower speeds the difference would be less, but measurable nevertheless with accurate enough devices, and as has been pointed out above, it has been measured to be frame invariant to at least 17 digits.
This falsifies the Newtonian view of absolute time and space that you seem to naively have been pushing.
What's your point? The observers moving with the rod apparently got two different times for the light to travel from A to B and from B to A, because why else would they conclude that the clocks were not synchronous?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 26/01/2022 13:49:18
I know others can't speak for Einstein but everyone who has been posting here seems to support his theories
There does seem to be quite a bit of support for relativity here.  Of course this is a science site.  Even outside of this site there seems to be support, you know like every single university in the entire world.  I wonder why that is?
Thanks for answering my question about your motivation, relativity just doesn't go with your intuition.  If observation and experimentation doesn't agree with your intuition you ignore it.  Got it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 26/01/2022 16:41:18
So your point is that if you were in a frame, say a very long rocket powered boxcar with no windows, on a track, with a 300 km rod with clocks attached to each end, and the boxcar was moving at 150,000 km/s relative to the track, that you could use beams of light between those two clocks to determine that you were in uniform motion rather than being stationary? You do realize that violates the postulate of reciprocity between inertial frames, right?

No, he's saying the opposite. The fact that the speed of light is frame-invariant means you'd always get the same time for a round trip regardless of whether the boxcar is moving or not (if you're in the same frame as the boxcar).
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 26/01/2022 16:59:45
This falsifies the Newtonian view of absolute time and space that you seem to naively have been pushing.
Wouldn't that be what Einstein seemed to be naively pushing? I didn't write that the beams would take two different times and therefore give the observers moving with the clocks reason to conclude they were not synchronous, Einstein did. Or is it your position that the light took the same amount of time both ways and the observers then concluded that the clocks were not synchronous because they thought that's what it meant, presumably because they had very poor science skills? Let me refresh your memory.
Quote
Observers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the two
clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would
declare the clocks to be synchronous
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 26/01/2022 17:04:32
So your point is that if you were in a frame, say a very long rocket powered boxcar with no windows, on a track, with a 300 km rod with clocks attached to each end, and the boxcar was moving at 150,000 km/s relative to the track, that you could use beams of light between those two clocks to determine that you were in uniform motion rather than being stationary? You do realize that violates the postulate of reciprocity between inertial frames, right?

No, he's saying the opposite. The fact that the speed of light is frame-invariant means you'd always get the same time for a round trip regardless of whether the boxcar is moving or not (if you're in the same frame as the boxcar).
Okay so why did this happen?
Quote
Observers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the two
clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would
declare the clocks to be synchronous
Did the light take the same amount of time both ways or not? What it looks like is that the moving observers saw them take different times and the stationary observers saw them take the same time. How did that happen? Both saw the same light beams and same clocks, so how did they not see the same thing happen? Whatever the moving observers saw would have to be the same if they were stationary, obviously what they see in their own frame would not change depending on them moving or not, so why would they conclude that their clocks, which were synchronized before the experiment, were suddenly no longer synchronized?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 26/01/2022 17:38:07
So your point is that if you were in a frame, say a very long rocket powered boxcar with no windows, on a track, with a 300 km rod with clocks attached to each end, and the boxcar was moving at 150,000 km/s relative to the track
The box car has need of neither wheels nor rocket since it is (I presume) inertial and there is no force being applied to it. If it had windows, physics would not change, so no need to preclude them. Einstein certainly had everybody looking at each other in the part you quoted.
Quote
that you could use beams of light between those two clocks to determine that you were in uniform motion rather than being stationary?
No. There is no test for being stationary at all under SR. There isn't even meaning to the phrase 'being stationary' without a frame reference. This was not anybody's point at all.

Quote
You do realize that violates the postulate of reciprocity between inertial frames, right?
Under special relativity, it would violate the Principle of Relativity (PoR) postulate if such a test existed, and assuming that's what you mean by 'postulate of reciprocity'.

Wouldn't that be what Einstein seemed to be naively pushing?
But it isn't naive. Both postulates were empirically verified: Physics isn't frame dependent (there's no known local test for absolute velocity), and speed of light is always measured to be the same value regardless of the frame in which the test was performed. The rest was derived (not postulated) from these principles with rigorous mathematics, not gut feels, wishful thinking, and hand-waving.

Quote
I didn't write that the beams would take two different times and therefore give the observers moving with the clocks reason to conclude they were not synchronous, Einstein did.
No he didn't. The observer moving with the rod concluded the clocks were not in sync in his frame because the clocks failed the sync convention. No actual measurement of the time to go from A to B was performed. You're not reading the paper it seems.

Quote
Observers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous
Yes, exactly. No mention of times taken to go from here to there. If the clocks are sufficiently out of sync, one might measure a week for light to go from Paris to London, and around negative-1-week for a signal to go the opposite way. It doesn't mean light actually took that long or that it traveled to the past, it just means the clocks are obviously not in sync.

Okay so why did this happen?
Quote
Observers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous
It happened because under the postulates of SR, simultaneity is shown to be frame dependent, one of the simplest conclusions that follow directly from the postulates.

Quote
Did the light take the same amount of time both ways or not?
Meaningless query in absence of a frame reference. The time taken to go between two light-like separated events is frame dependent, as is the spatial separation between those events.

Quote
What it looks like is that the moving observers saw them take different times and the stationary observers saw them take the same time.
No. Nobody saw any times in that description. Times can only be measured by one clock, not two in different locations. All one can do is subtract the reading of one clock from the reading of the other, and from that obtain a difference, the meaning of which is dependent on the convention by which it can be demonstrated that the clocks are or are not in sync relative to a given frame.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 26/01/2022 18:22:45
No. Nobody saw any times in that description. Times can only be measured by one clock, not two in different locations. All one can do is subtract the reading of one clock from the reading of the other, and from that obtain a difference, the meaning of which is dependent on the convention by which it can be demonstrated that the clocks are or are not in sync relative to a given frame.
Well what they did was record the time showing on clock A when the beam was fired to clock B, recorded the time showing on clock B when it arrived/reflected back to clock A and they recorded that time of arrival at clock A. They had recorded three times, two for clock A and one for clock B.

For them to conclude that the clocks were not synchronous, the time shown on clock B when the beam arrived/reflected minus the time shown on clock A when the beam was fired would have to be different from the time shown on clock A when the beam returned to it minus that same time that had been recorded at the arrival/reflection time on clock B. There is no way that can be considered a logical thing to have happened, because supposedly you can't tell if you're in uniform motion or stationary by any test. We know the clocks had been synchronized before they started moving so how could they have produced different elapsed times for the two directions of the light beam?

Now if you say "Nobody saw any times in that description", which you did, then how did they have tA and tB for the equations "tB − tA = rAB/c − v and t′A − tB = rAB/c + v"? What did you think t stood for, tribbles?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 26/01/2022 18:33:18
Hi,

The illusion is caused by the velocity of the particle. In other words, the displacement of the particle through the velocity intrinsically generates space and time in its frame reference.

We could refer to an oscillator to be able to interpret this. Indeed and in second quantification the contraction of the particle in its point of origin corresponds to the annihilation, until the expansion of the particle in space as a creation operator.

(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/t-symmetry.png)
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kartazion on 26/01/2022 18:56:48

New thread related to it: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83945.0
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 26/01/2022 21:51:33
I'd like to address something which is related to this discussion, it's the Michelson conjecture about velocity addition/subtraction which was the basis of his experiment with the light beams being reflected off mirrors in E/W and N/S directions. The reason for the null result is that he was simply wrong about things going back and forth in a direction of motion and against it being different from the same thing without the motion. Here's what Michelson thought.
Quote
Swimmer speed: 5 ft/s, river speed: 3 ft/s, swim course length:100 ft each way. Going downstream the swimmer’s speed is the sum of his speed plus the river’s flow 5 + 3= 8, and going upstream his speed is his rate minus the river’s flow 5 – 3= 2.The time downstream is 100/8 = 12.5 seconds and the time upstream is 100/2 = 50 seconds. The total time is therefore 62.5 seconds.

In reality, it's simply the average of 8 plus 2. There's no difference in the round trip time compared to the water being completely still, the two directions just average out to 5 ft/s. It might not seem like it from the equations in that quote but if you think about it, it makes sense. Do you seriously think it's going to change from 40 to 62.5 seconds just from it being 8 and 2 instead of 5 and 5? The Michelson-Morley experiment proved it conclusively too. That's the only reasonable explanation for the null result because we now know from actual tests that earth's rotation does affect the time light takes to travel a certain distance East or West. It has been proven with radio transmissions, which are the same speed as light, between NY and San Francisco, 14 nanoseconds are gained going West and lost going East.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 26/01/2022 22:42:46
I'd like to address something which is related to this discussion, it's the Michelson conjecture about velocity addition/subtraction which was the basis of his experiment with the light beams being reflected off mirrors in E/W and N/S directions. The reason for the null result is that he was simply wrong about things going back and forth in a direction of motion and against it being different from the same thing without the motion.
You are misinterpreting the experiment.  Look at this link http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/michelson.html (http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/michelson.html), I think it will help you understand the experiment.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2022 23:21:59
In reality, it's simply the average of 8 plus 2.
You calculated the "wrong" average.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 27/01/2022 01:21:25
Well what they did was record the time showing on clock A when the beam was fired to clock B, recorded the time showing on clock B when it arrived/reflected back to clock A and they recorded that time of arrival at clock A. They had recorded three times, two for clock A and one for clock B.
OK. So now we have 3 different measurements. I agree with this, except I'd reword the last (bold) bit as the "time showing on clock A at the arrival event there". Your wording presumes that the clock there actually shows 'the time' which is meaningless in this context.

Quote
For them to conclude that the clocks were not synchronous, the time shown on clock B when the beam arrived/reflected minus the time shown on clock A when the beam was fired would have to be different from the time shown on clock A when the beam returned to it minus that same time that had been recorded at the arrival/reflection time on clock B.
Close. From this, everybody concludes that the clocks are not synchronous relative to the frame in which they are stationary. Without the frame reference, the part I bolded above is meaningless.

Quote
There is no way that can be considered a logical thing to have happened
Under relativity theory, I agree, which is why I had to fix your comment to make it meaningful. With the frame reference, it becomes a logical thing which can be considered to have happened.

Quote
because supposedly you can't tell if you're in uniform motion or stationary by any test.
Nobody concluded that.

Quote
We know the clocks had been synchronized before they started moving
Meaningless statement actually. Needs a frame reference, and then it would still be wrong.
If you read the paper, the clocks were not synchronized until after the rod was moving, and then they were synchronized to local clocks stationary in the first frame. In other words, they looked 'out the window' and set each clock to the value they saw going by just then. This sort of syncs them to the first frame, not to the frame of the rod. I say 'sort of' because while both clocks A and B will always read the same value relative to the original frame, they will not continue to read the same value as the clocks they pass by. They will fall behind them.

Quote
so how could they have produced different elapsed times for the two directions of the light beam?
No elapsed times were measured (well, except between the first and third measurement, and then only relative to the frame in which clock A was stationary). All we had is 3 specific clock readings, which is different than having 3 times or two elapsed times.

Quote
Now if you say "Nobody saw any times in that description", which you did, then how did they have tA and tB for the equations "tB − tA = rAB/c − v and t′A − tB = rAB/c + v"? What did you think t stood for, tribbles?
As you said in the first sentence, they're readings on a device. They're objective. Nobody in any frame disagrees what those clocks displayed at each of the respective events.

I'd like to address something which is related to this discussion, it's the Michelson conjecture about velocity addition/subtraction which was the basis of his experiment with the light beams being reflected off mirrors in E/W and N/S directions. The reason for the null result is that he was simply wrong about things going back and forth in a direction of motion and against it being different from the same thing without the motion.
Wow. You think you're smarter than a lot of people famous for being smarter than all of us. Mind you, I've pointed out errors in every paper you've linked, but those guys are known cranks. Michelson was not a crank.

Quote
Here's what Michelson thought.
Quote
Swimmer speed: 5 ft/s, river speed: 3 ft/s, swim course length:100 ft each way. Going downstream the swimmer’s speed is the sum of his speed plus the river’s flow 5 + 3= 8, and going upstream his speed is his rate minus the river’s flow 5 – 3= 2.The time downstream is 100/8 = 12.5 seconds and the time upstream is 100/2 = 50 seconds. The total time is therefore 62.5 seconds.
Exactly correct. Round trip time is 62.5 seconds, but if the river is stationary, the speed would be just 5 each way, or 20 + 20 = 40 seconds round trip.

Quote
In reality, it's simply the average of 8 plus 2.
His swimming speed relative to the water is, yes. His average speed relative to the 100 foot course is 200 feet/62.5 seconds = 3.2 feet/sec, not 5. If you assert otherwise, you must have failed an awful lot of algebra exams because they always put one like that in them.

Quote
There's no difference in the round trip time compared to the water being completely still
Now you're just making a total fool of yourself. Which figure is wrong? The 50 seconds to go upstream or the 12.5 to come back, or both? How do you justify a different number for the ones you feel a need to change? Maybe you're asserting that 50+12.5 = 40.
How can you presume to be even remotely competent at physics if you've not even a grasp on middle school mathematics?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 27/01/2022 06:31:24
Before I reply to other things I want to clear up the Michelson thing. Apparently he was right about the different times swimming upstream and downstream, I found a calculator that works out things like that for plane headwinds or water currents with boats and it was exactly like he said, BUT it's not analogous to speed on the rotating earth. When you drive West traveling at 100 mph you're not traveling at 1100 mph due to the earth rotating eastward at approximately 1000 mph, and going East you're not traveling at 900 mph.

It does not take you 6.66 minutes to drive 100 miles East and 5.45 minutes to drive 100 miles West, I think you'll agree. Well that's what you would get if you divided 1100 mph  and 900 mph by 100 miles and multiplied the results by 60 (minutes in an hour). That shows how Michelson made his error and it cost him the whole experiment. We know that light takes 14 nanoseconds less to go from NY to San Francisco than the reverse direction, so the different times of the East and West paths of the reflected beam in the experiment would exactly cancel out. THAT is why the results were null.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 27/01/2022 06:55:28
If you read the paper, the clocks were not synchronized until after the rod was moving, and then they were synchronized to local clocks stationary in the first frame. In other words, they looked 'out the window' and set each clock to the value they saw going by just then. This sort of syncs them to the first frame, not to the frame of the rod. I say 'sort of' because while both clocks A and B will always read the same value relative to the original frame, they will not continue to read the same value as the clocks they pass by. They will fall behind them.

I see what you mean in the first part of that quote, Einstein didn't actually say they were synchronized with the stationary clocks before starting to move. Einstein was not very clear in his description so it was easy to misinterpret. However I don't get the rest of the quote. Whenever they were synchronized to the stationary clocks, the hands still moved at the same rate on clocks A and B, so they still should have shown the same interval for the beams in each direction.

Einstein was saying, I presume, that the moving observers would see two different times showing on both moving clocks while the stationary observers would see the same times on both. That would be the reverse of what I saw in a video about a rocket with beams going to each end from the middle. It said the stationary observer would see different times on both clocks at each end while the moving observers would see the same times. So in the article it was simply changed around from that, the moving observers saw them with different times and the stationary observers saw them with the same times. I'll have to think this over some more before I comment further on it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/01/2022 08:44:00
BUT it's not analogous to speed on the rotating earth.
Nobody said it was.
The MM experiment is designed to look at whether the Earth is moving through the ether.
And the analogy between swimmers on a moving river and light in a moving ether is quite good.
The problem is that you were looking at the average speed measured WRT the water, when you should have been looking  at the average speed measured WRT the ground.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 27/01/2022 14:38:55
BUT it's not analogous to speed on the rotating earth.
Nobody said it was.
The MM experiment is designed to look at whether the Earth is moving through the ether.
And the analogy between swimmers on a moving river and light in a moving ether is quite good.
The problem is that you were looking at the average speed measured WRT the water, when you should have been looking  at the average speed measured WRT the ground.
I see, well,  I guess they proved there's no aether then huh? But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 27/01/2022 14:41:45
I think Einstein wrote the moving rod thing wrong by mistake, because this quote from a page about SR says the exact opposite of what he wrote.
Quote
If, for example, a light signal bounces between ends A and B of a rod, an observer at rest on the rod judges the traversal times to be equal. But that is not so for an observer who judges the rod to move in the direction of A to B. For that observer, the light signal traversing from A to B needs more time to catch the fleeing end B; and the light signal traversing from B to A requires less time to meet the approaching end A. This disagreement immediately leads to the two observer's differing judgments concerning the simultaneity of the events at A and B; that is, to the relativity of simultaneity.

https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/magnet_and_conductor/index.html (https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/magnet_and_conductor/index.html)

Einstein said observers WITH the rod, ie; "at rest" in regard to it, would NOT judge the traversal times to be equal.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 27/01/2022 18:34:44
I agree with none of the above. It all lacks frame references, and thus is no more than word salad.
Despite my continued pointing out of this error, you continue to make it and post meaningless stuff such as this:
So it's your contention that this is not true? You think you really would be traveling 100 miles in less that 7 minutes?
Quote
When you drive West traveling at 100 mph you're not traveling at 1100 mph due to the earth rotating eastward at approximately 1000 mph, and going East you're not traveling at 900 mph. It does not take you 6.66 minutes to drive 100 miles East and 5.45 minutes to drive 100 miles West.

Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 27/01/2022 18:56:51
I am travelling at less than a meter per second relative to the rotating frame of my laptop. Relative to the inertial frame of Earth, I travel 100 km in about 5 minutes. Relative to the sun, it takes about 3 seconds to go that far. Relative to the galaxy, it takes under half a second. But your statement above lacks a frame reference, hence is still meaningless, and not something with which I can agree.
The frame of reference would be the earth's surface. I know it's surprising that a person would be driving on the earth's surface but so it is, forgive me for not specifying that it wasn't driving on a cloud.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/01/2022 19:13:39
But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.
What effect did the rotation of the Earth have on their experiment?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 27/01/2022 19:20:03
But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.
What effect did the rotation of the Earth have on their experiment?
None, because why would it? The beam gained maybe 0.00001 nanosecond going one way and then lost the same amount when it bounced back the other way.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 27/01/2022 20:09:02
The frame of reference would be the earth's surface.
Excellent! You're talking about the rotating frame. Yes, in that frame, it takes an hour to go 100 km in your car. In that frame, Neptune moves faster than c, and light takes longer to go from SF to NY than the other way around (assuming a reasonably straight path and not one that goes the long way around). Such is a known property of rotating frames. Einstein wasn't considering a rotating frame in the sections at which we've been looking. So for instance, relative to the inertial frame of Earth, your eastbound (near the equator) car really does go east at 1100 mph (sorry, I was using metric before), and the westbound car goes -900 mph westward, and thus isn't really westbound, is it?

With relativity discussions, confusion results from omitting frame references. You may think they're implied, but mistakes are made by assuming distances, durations, times, and locations are the same from one frame to the next. The references are absolutely necessary to make unambiguous statements.
So if you're discussing some value (say distance between events), it matters whether you're using the S coordinate system or the R coordinate system to express that distance. Without the reference, all you'll get is annoying replies saying that your statements lack meaning.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 27/01/2022 20:36:53
The frame of reference would be the earth's surface.
Excellent! You're talking about the rotating frame. Yes, in that frame, it takes an hour to go 100 km in your car. In that frame, Neptune moves faster than c, and light takes longer to go from SF to NY than the other way around (assuming a reasonably straight path and not one that goes the long way around). Such is a known property of rotating frames. Einstein wasn't considering a rotating frame in the sections at which we've been looking. So for instance, relative to the inertial frame of Earth, your eastbound (near the equator) car really does go east at 1100 mph (sorry, I was using metric before), and the westbound car goes -900 mph westward, and thus isn't really westbound, is it?

With relativity discussions, confusion results from omitting frame references. You may think they're implied, but mistakes are made by assuming distances, durations, times, and locations are the same from one frame to the next. The references are absolutely necessary to make unambiguous statements.
So if you're discussing some value (say distance between events), it matters whether you're using the S coordinate system or the R coordinate system to express that distance. Without the reference, all you'll get is annoying replies saying that your statements lack meaning.
I see, I didn't realize I was writing an article in Scientic American. Just kidding, I'll try to be more specific. Anyway, point being, on the earth's surface you don't get the swimming up and down a river effect, so Michelson's experiment would not show earth rotation effects on light, but would it show effects from earth's orbit around the sun? If there was aether, yes, because it would be the equivalent of the river bank. So Michelson did prove a lack of aether but not a lack of Sagnac effect from earth's rotation.

Apparently you agree that said Sagnac effect exists, but you explain it as a relativity consistent effect because it involves a rotating frame. It doesn't actually confirm relativity, it just doesn't necessarily disprove it either, Einstein just gave himself an out by saying that rotating frames are not inertial. I can agree with that, because an observer on a rotating disk could tell if it was rotating or not, by centrifugal force.

Now there's the conundrum of why a rotating frame can be confirmed to be in rotation like that, what is it in rotation relative to? The same would apply to binary stars in orbit with each other, what are they rotating in relation to? Presumably an imaginary point between them called the barycenter, but how is the barycenter a stationary reference? It seems counter to relativity theory. If there are two equal disks with the same axis, with a space between the two, what is the difference between one being stationary and the other rotating and the other way around, or both rotating in opposite directions at equal angular velocity?

The only difference between the two disk frames is that an observer on one would perceive centrifugal force and one on the other would not. What made them different in that way? The use of energy to create force to produce rotational motion in one. Kinetic energy had been stored in the disk as inertial motion. The disk would continue to rotate, assuming no external friction or resistance, until that kinetic energy was transferred to another mass by exerting a force moving it outward from a position close to the axis to one farther away from it.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 28/01/2022 13:50:23
Anyway, point being, on the earth's surface you don't get the swimming up and down a river effect, so Michelson's experiment would not show earth rotation effects on light, but would it show effects from earth's orbit around the sun?
It was designed to detect motion relative to the medium (aether) in any direction. If there was such a medium and the current Newtonian model was accurate, all orbits, spins, etc would involve daily and annual variations due to changes from spin and orbit. The instrument was sufficiently sensitive to detect 1500 mph changes, which is the typical change in velocity over the course of 12 hours.
The experiment measured isotropy in all frames, which resolved the conflict between Newton's equations and Maxwell's equation. They couldn't both be right. Newton's model had been falsified.

Quote
So Michelson did prove a lack of aether but not a lack of Sagnac effect from earth's rotation.
Yet again, no proof of lack of aether was made. It was simply demonstrated to be superfuous. No test for Sagnac was made since the experiment didn't involve a loop enclosing an area.

Quote
Apparently you agree that said Sagnac effect exists
It had better. There are devices in use every day that depend on it.
Quote
but you explain it as a relativity consistent effect because it involves a rotating frame.
One can explain any situation using one's choice of frame. Sagnac is no exception, and can be explained via the properties of rotating frames, or it can be explained using only an inertial frame.

Quote
It doesn't actually confirm relativity
Relativity has little to say about the Sagnac effec that Newtonian physics didn't already explain. Unless the device is rotated at relativistic speeds, there's no need to invoke relativity theory to predict the Sagnac effect, so no, it isn't really a test of relativity since relativity doesn't predict anything different.

Quote
Einstein just gave himself an out by saying that rotating frames are not inertial.
Newton said that actually. He demonstrated that rotation is absolute, while linear velocity is not necessarily so (per Galileo).

Quote
Now there's the conundrum of why a rotating frame can be confirmed to be in rotation like that, what is it in rotation relative to?
No relation needed in the case of rotation. That's what it means to say rotation is absolute. The rate of rotation of a closed system can be determined from within a box.

Quote
The same would apply to binary stars in orbit with each other, what are they rotating in relation to? Presumably an imaginary point between them called the barycenter, but how is the barycenter a stationary reference? It seems counter to relativity theory.
Well, for a closed system, there is a frame independent worldline for the center of gravity of the system which does not accelerate, so is stationary in the frame of the system. The word 'barycenter' only applies to two-body system since with more bodies, nothing necessarily moves in a predictable path about the center of gravity, nor is even particularly attracted in its direction.
Picture a rock in space, not rotating. It has zero angular momentum relative to its center of gravity, and for that matter, relative to any point in space in the frame where that rock is stationary. But in a frame where the rock is moving, the rock has angular momentum relative to any point in space that is not on the line of its motion. So in that sense, angular energy and momentum about random points in space are frame dependent.

Quote
If there are two equal disks with the same axis, with a space between the two, what is the difference between one being stationary and the other rotating and the other way around, or both rotating in opposite directions at equal angular velocity?
The first system has nonzero angular momentum. The 2nd system has zero angular momentum. Remember that momentum, like velocity, is a vector, and one must use vector addition when adding up the momentums of the respective parts.

To illustrate this, you can have a small box with two disks in it spinning on an axis fixed to the box. In the first case, the box has angular momentum and if you hold it, you'll notice a resistance to turning it due to gyroscopic effects. In the second case with the disks spinning in opposite directions, the box has zero angular momentum and will not resist being turned this way and that. There would be an effortless test to determine which case is which, without having to look inside the box.

Another test: if you're on the ring of a windowless space station rotating for gravity, you can tell the direction of rotation by peeing in a bucket and seeing which way the stream curves. Even light bends to the side due to Coriolis forces.

Quote
The only difference between the two disk frames is that an observer on one would perceive centrifugal force and one on the other would not.
There you go. It's not the only difference, but it's the most obvious. You could do really subtle special relativity stuff like measure the diameter and circumference of the disk, which will have a ratio of π only for a non-rotating disk, but to get a measurable difference with say just a tape measure, you'd have to spin it at a rate which would kill a human.

Quote
The use of energy to create force to produce rotational motion in one.
Force (torque actually) is only needed to change the angular momentum of the thing. No torque is needed to keep it spinning, per Newton's laws.

Quote
Kinetic energy had been stored in the disk as inertial motion. The disk would continue to rotate, assuming no external friction or resistance, until that kinetic energy was transferred to another mass by exerting a force moving it outward from a position close to the axis to one farther away from it.
To move mass inward, energy needs to be imparted to the system. The ice skater needs to perform work to pull her arms in and spin faster. Likewise, to move outward, excess energy must go somewhere. So for example, the spin of Earth momentum is slowly being transferred to the moon, raising its orbital radius. Of all the energy Earth loses in this process, only about 3% of it goes to the moon (a higher radius orbit is a higher energy orbit) and the excess is radiated away as heat.

We're getting pretty off topic here. OK, a lot of this is discussion of relations, and that's good. But very little of it differs between Einstein's physics and what came before. Newton may have been falsified for the boundary cases, but they very much still teach Newtonian physics in schools. It works just fine for most applications, and nobody needed to apply relativity theory to get a man on the moon.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 28/01/2022 19:03:52
It was designed to detect motion relative to the medium (aether) in any direction.
Excellent post, too bad Centra won't read it with an open mind, I have no doubt many of the members and guests will however.  I admire your patience with posters like Centra, keep up the good work.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 28/01/2022 19:11:40
That last post was actually somewhat informative, Halc, which is a nice change from the usual insulting. As a brief aside from relativity, something I find interesting involving rotation is that to equal earth's gravitational acceleration of 9.807 m/s˛ with rotation all that's required is a 10 m diameter and an angular velocity of 13.374 rpm. That's slow, over 4 seconds per rotation, you could easily achieve that by manually pushing it around. It seems like earth gravity is strong when you think of a boulder or something heavy like that but it's surprisingly weak if you look at it as the equivalent of centrifugal force.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 28/01/2022 19:13:08
It was designed to detect motion relative to the medium (aether) in any direction.
Excellent post, too bad Centra won't read it with an open mind, I have no doubt many of the members and guests will however.  I admire your patience with posters like Centra, keep up the good work.
Patience, are you kidding? He insults me regularly. You know, like you.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 29/01/2022 01:41:39
Patience, are you kidding? He insults me regularly. You know, like you.
This is a science site and your pseudoscience attitude is insulting.  It's also insulting to take time to help you understand a concept and have you ignore it.  Purposely or not you are trolling so don't be surprised to be treated like a troll.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 29/01/2022 18:05:56
Patience, are you kidding? He insults me regularly. You know, like you.
This is a science site and your pseudoscience attitude is insulting.  It's also insulting to take time to help you understand a concept and have you ignore it.  Purposely or not you are trolling so don't be surprised to be treated like a troll.
You too huh?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 29/01/2022 18:36:59
Here is a comment about the illusion of relative motion, which is in the same vein as the illusion of velocity, it shows how wrong assumptions can be made in the subject of relativity. I mentioned something about this earlier but I was thinking about again just now so thought I would write a new comment about it.

Seems to me that two objects of very different masses shouldn't really be considered interchangeable as to mutual motion. It's obvious that it would take 10 times as much energy or force to move a 10 kg object the same distance as a 1 kg object, so why should they be given equal relative motion? If they move apart 100 m then isn't it logical that the 10 kg object should be regarded as having moved 9.090909 m and the 1 kg object 90.90909 m? Granted the velocity between the two objects would be the same, but the relative share of the distance between the two objects would not. Two objects moving apart, regardless of how it came about, can be viewed as the two spaces between the barycenter and each object both increasing while maintaining the same ratio. I think Einstein overlooked that important concept.

Now you might ask what if a planet and a rocket are involved? The planet's share off the distance would be practically nil in that case and couldn't even be calculated with accuracy. Such are the problems that can arise in working with relative motion, sometimes it's essentially a stationary frame and a moving one, the mismatch in mass is so extreme. The speed of light would be constant in relation to the center of mass, like the earth, not necessarily the surface thereof, if it's in rotation. Why? because it would have to be constant in relation to different levels of the surface, and even underground levels, all of which would be moving at different angular velocities, thus, light would have no one constant reference at all. Looking at light at sea level from the top of a mountain would present some simultaneity problems, even though there was seemingly only a single frame, the ground at sea level would not actually be in relative motion to the mountaintop and yet light would seem to move at different rates.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/01/2022 19:08:53
so why should they be given equal relative motion?
Because it's exactly as far from A to B as it is from B to A.
So, when you write stuff like  this, and then say

Granted the velocity would be the same, but the relative motion would not.
It looks like you are trolling.
Because the time taken is the same, and the velocity is the same, but somehow, you think the distance (which you can calculate by multiplying the same velocity by the same time) is different.

Why don't you stop this nonsense?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 29/01/2022 20:54:02
so why should they be given equal relative motion?
Because it's exactly as far from A to B as it is from B to A.
So, when you write stuff like  this, and then say

Granted the velocity would be the same, but the relative motion would not.
It looks like you are trolling.
Because the time taken is the same, and the velocity is the same, but somehow, you think the distance (which you can calculate by multiplying the same velocity by the same time) is different.

Why don't you stop this nonsense?
Because the velocity is the time and distance between the two points but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why. Now Why don't you stop this nonsense of critiquing things which are apparently beyond your level of comprehension?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/01/2022 21:09:47
but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why
Why?
Why not split it in the middle or, even better, why not decide that splitting it at all is pointless?

The reason why the distance between the two is not split is because there's no reason to.
Once you stop doing the pointless thing, it stops mattering how you might choose to do it.

Now Why don't you stop this nonsense of critiquing things which are apparently beyond your level of comprehension?
Everyone here apart from you agrees.
The whole of the world of physics agrees.
You are the only one who thinks you are right.
And it's clear  that you do not know what you are talking about.

So why are you trolling?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 29/01/2022 22:52:15
Because the velocity is the time and distance between the two points but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why.

I'd like to see a source that supports this claim.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 29/01/2022 23:28:26
It's obvious that it would take 10 times as much energy or force to move a 10 kg object the same distance as a 1 kg object, so why should they be given equal relative motion? If they move apart 100 m then isn't it logical that the 10 kg object should be regarded as having moved 9.090909 m and the 1 kg object 90.90909 m?
No that would be absurd.  We are talking about relative velocity between objects.  It takes exactly the same amount of force to maintain the velocity of a 10 ton object as it does a 1 gram object.  They both require 0.0N to maintain their velocities.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 30/01/2022 08:26:30
Because the velocity is the time and distance between the two points but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why.

I'd like to see a source that supports this claim.
Uh, you need a source for something which is obvious? You know a barycenter is a real thing, right? Well, if there were two unequal masses in outer space and a spring between them was released what do you think would happen? Would they both move an equal distance from the barycenter? Unless your answer is yes, no source is required, much like no source is required for me stating that the sky is blue, though for you, I guess i should specify when there are no clouds and it's noon. If you claim that the statement I just made is false then YOU are the one who would require a source, because then you're statement would be in contradiction to the established laws of physics, not mine. My source is the established laws of physics? Just Google "laws of physics". Do you want me to provide the URL for Google?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 30/01/2022 08:31:55
It's obvious that it would take 10 times as much energy or force to move a 10 kg object the same distance as a 1 kg object, so why should they be given equal relative motion? If they move apart 100 m then isn't it logical that the 10 kg object should be regarded as having moved 9.090909 m and the 1 kg object 90.90909 m?
No that would be absurd.  We are talking about relative velocity between objects.  It takes exactly the same amount of force to maintain the velocity of a 10 ton object as it does a 1 gram object.  They both require 0.0N to maintain their velocities.
No, YOU'RE talking about relative velocity between two objects, I'm talking about relative motion based on mass. Did the two objects start moving in opposite directions instantly and with equal velocity relative to the barycenter between them? What I stated is exactly what would happen if equal force was applied to both objects in opposite directions with no source of friction or resistance. By the time the distance between them was 100 m, the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 cm from their barycenter and the 1 kg object would be 90.90909 cm from it. Let's see you refute that.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 30/01/2022 09:15:53
People will say "but uniform motion does not involve accelerating so it would be equally interchangeable between objects of different mass". Maybe, but maybe not. To get to that uniform motion, one had more kinetic energy added to it than the other. A 10 kg mass moving away at 100 m/s from the same reference object that a 1 kg mass is also moving away from at the same velocity in the opposite direction has more stored kinetic energy than the 1 kg mass. Can objects of equal mass, one with no kinetic energy stored and the other with a certain amount stored be considered equally in motion relative to each other? I contend that they cannot, there is an asymmetry so how can they be considered equal?

If there are two equal mass objects with rocket engines on them and rocket fuel is added to one and it fires the rocket until all fuel is consumed, both objects would then have equal mass but one would have the kinetic energy added by that fuel burn. Could you then say that both objects are identical because they are moving apart at the same relative velocity? There is clearly an asymmetry, one has momentum and kinetic energy and the other doesn't so they cannot be considered equal. The rocket that did not burn fuel could be considered to be moving away from the one that did at the same velocity but would it have momentum and kinetic energy? Logically it would not, it didn't do anything, it just sat there. Stored energy is a real thing, it can't just be disregarded, so the two objects cannot be considered equal, the one with stored kinetic energy is in motion, the other is not, even though they may appear equally in motion relative to each other.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2022 10:43:16
Uh, you need a source for something which is obvious?
It's only "obvious" to you.
The rest of us realise it's wrong or meaningless.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2022 10:45:33
Well, if there were two unequal masses in outer space and a spring between them was released what do you think would happen?
From the point of view of an ant standing on one of the masses, the other mass moves.
That's what relative means.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 30/01/2022 13:01:28
No, YOU'RE talking about relative velocity between two objects,
This thread is about velocity, but I guess you forgot.  Now you want to talk about acceleration.
I'm talking about relative motion based on mass.
Now you want to talk about velocity again.  Relative motion is not based on mass.
Did the two objects start moving in opposite directions instantly and with equal velocity relative to the barycenter between them?
It does not matter, one or both objects could have accelerated at any rate in the past it is immaterial.
What I stated is exactly what would happen if equal force was applied to both objects in opposite directions with no source of friction or resistance.
Now you want to talk about forces.  Yes a given force will accelerate different mass at different rates.  F=ma.
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Centra on 30/01/2022 13:05:35
No, YOU'RE talking about relative velocity between two objects,
This thread is about velocity, but I guess you forgot.  Now you want to talk about acceleration.
I'm talking about relative motion based on mass.
Now you want to talk about velocity again.  Relative motion is not based on mass.
Did the two objects start moving in opposite directions instantly and with equal velocity relative to the barycenter between them?
It does not matter, one or both objects could have accelerated at any rate in the past it is immaterial.
What I stated is exactly what would happen if equal force was applied to both objects in opposite directions with no source of friction or resistance.
Now you want to talk about forces.  Yes a given force will accelerate different mass at different rates.  F=ma.
Oh I didn't realize I had to start a new thread for every word. Maybe I should have called it the Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Acceleration Gravity Light Theory. Would that make you happy?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Origin on 30/01/2022 13:27:18
People will say "but uniform motion does not involve accelerating so it would be equally interchangeable between objects of different mass". Maybe, but maybe not.
To get to that uniform motion, one had more kinetic energy added to it than the other.
False.
A 10 kg mass moving away at 100 m/s from the same reference object that a 1 kg mass is also moving away from at the same velocity in the opposite direction has more stored kinetic energy than the 1 kg mass.
From the frame of the reference object the 10 kg object would have the highest KE.  From the frame of the 10 kg object the 1 kg object would have the highest KE unless the reference object was much more massive in which case the reference object would have the highest KE, but you didn't specify the mass of the reference object so I can't say for sure.
Can objects of equal mass, one with no kinetic energy stored and the other with a certain amount stored be considered equally in motion relative to each other?
Yes they absolutely can.  Energy is frame dependent.  Let's name the objects of equal mass A and B.  From As frame it has no KE and object B has KE.  From Bs frame it has no KE and object A has KE.
By the way KE isn't "stored".
If there are two equal mass objects with rocket engines on them and rocket fuel is added to one and it fires the rocket until all fuel is consumed, both objects would then have equal mass but one would have the kinetic energy added by that fuel burn. Could you then say that both objects are identical because they are moving apart at the same relative velocity?
The rocket that had the fuel let's call A and the other we will call B.  Once As burn is over then you can say that from As frame it has no KE and that rocket B is moving away from it at some velocity and that it has KE.  From Bs frame it has no KE and A is moving away at some velocity and has KE.
The rocket that did not burn fuel could be considered to be moving away from the one that did at the same velocity but would it have momentum and kinetic energy?
Yes, absolutely from the frame of the rocket that did the burn.
Stored energy is a real thing, it can't just be disregarded, so the two objects cannot be considered equal, the one with stored kinetic energy is in motion, the other is not, even though they may appear equally in motion relative to each other.
There is no such thing as 'stored KE', KE is frame dependent.

You know Centra you could always learn some physics before you try to teach it!
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Halc on 30/01/2022 13:54:31
Careful about using the word 'obvious', especially in a discussion of relativity, especially when you don't know relativity at all.

Two objects moving apart, regardless of how it came about, can be viewed as the two spaces between the barycenter and each object both increasing while maintaining the same ratio.
Your frame reference seems to be this 'barycenter'. One could indeed choose to express the locations of the objects in the frame of the system center of mass (or barycenter as you inappropriately call it), which is exactly the choice most often made for analysis of a closed system like this. The ratio part works only in Newtonian mechanics, so your statement is still wrong.

Because the velocity is the time and distance between the two points but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why.
Uh, you need a source for something which is obvious?
We need a source supporting something that is obvious only to you, especially when it's blatantly wrong. See numeric example below.

Quote
You know a barycenter is a real thing, right?
It's an abstract thing, and one that only applies to orbiting systems, which this isn't. For non-orbiting systems or for systems of more than two masses, it's called the center of mass (CoM), which is real only if you consider abstractions to be real. You can put a small particle near the abstract CoM and the particle will not be necessarily attracted to it, so it isn't real in that sense.

Quote
Well, if there were two unequal masses in outer space and a spring between them was released what do you think would happen? Would they both move an equal distance from the barycenter?
The smaller mass would move at a higher speed, but not at speeds proportional to the inverse of their masses.

In the frame of the system CoM, suppose the two proper masses of 1 and 10 kg push off on each other and the 10 kg mass moves left at 30000 km/sec. The 1 kg mass will move right at about 228900 km/sec, which is not a 1-10 ratio like their masses. The rate at which either mass increases its distance from the other (the 'relative motion between masses') is about 240600 km/sec which is not the sum of 228900 and 30000. So the statement further up that you find 'obvious' is actually wrong. Don't assert intuitions. Run the numbers. Numbers don't lie.

From the point of view of an ant standing on one of the masses, the other mass moves.
That's what relative means.
It's not that simple. The ant also notices the proper acceleration and is not fooled into thinking that his own rock is not exhibiting motion.

Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2022 14:19:57
It's not that simple. The ant also notices the proper acceleration and is not fooled into thinking that his own rock is not exhibiting motion.
You are assuming the ant is clever.
He may still think the Sun goes round the Earth.
:-)
Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Centra on 30/01/2022 14:25:14
Quote
"You know a barycenter is a real thing, right?"

It's an abstract thing, and one that only applies to orbiting systems, which this isn't. For non-orbiting systems or for systems of more than two masses, it's called the center of mass (CoM), which is real only if you consider abstractions to be real. You can put a small particle near the abstract CoM and the particle will not be necessarily attracted to it, so it isn't real in that sense.
Quote
[ băr′ĭ-sĕn′tər ] The center of mass of two or more bodies, USUALLY bodies orbiting around each other, such as the Earth and the Moon

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/barycenter#:~:text=%5B%20băr′ĭ-sĕn′,the%20Earth%20and%20the%20Moon. (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/barycenter#:~:text=%5B%20băr′ĭ-sĕn′,the%20Earth%20and%20the%20Moon.)

So much for your expertise in scientific word definitions, Halc.
Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 30/01/2022 14:26:46
Uh, you need a source for something which is obvious?

If it's really "obvious", then you'll have no problem providing a source to back up your claim. So please do so.
Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Centra on 30/01/2022 14:58:37
Quote from: Halc on Today at 13:54:31
Quote
"You know a barycenter is a real thing, right?"

It's an abstract thing, and one that only applies to orbiting systems, which this isn't. For non-orbiting systems or for systems of more than two masses, it's called the center of mass (CoM), which is real only if you consider abstractions to be real. You can put a small particle near the abstract CoM and the particle will not be necessarily attracted to it, so it isn't real in that sense.

Quote
[ băr′ĭ-sĕn′tər ] The center of mass of two or more bodies, USUALLY bodies orbiting around each other, such as the Earth and the Moon

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/barycenter#:~:text=%5B%20băr′ĭ-sĕn′,the%20Earth%20and%20the%20Moon.

So much for your expertise in scientific word definitions, Halc.

Quote
Quote
"Well, if there were two unequal masses in outer space and a spring between them was released what do you think would happen? Would they both move an equal distance from the barycenter?"

The smaller mass would move at a higher speed, but not at speeds proportional to the inverse of their masses.

In the frame of the system CoM, suppose the two proper masses of 1 and 10 kg push off on each other and the 10 kg mass moves left at 30000 km/sec. The 1 kg mass will move right at about 228900 km/sec, which is not a 1-10 ratio like their masses. The rate at which either mass increases its distance from the other (the 'relative motion between masses') is about 240600 km/sec which is not the sum of 228900 and 30000. So the statement further up that you find 'obvious' is actually wrong. Don't assert intuitions. Run the numbers. Numbers don't lie.

And at the point when they were 100 m apart the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 m from the barycenter and the 1 kg one would be 90.90909 m from it, the 1 kg one having moved with a greater velocity than the 10 kg one and having moved a much greater distance than the 10 kg one, thus, they are clearly not interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis.
Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Origin on 30/01/2022 15:42:23
And at the point when they were 100 m apart the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 m from the barycenter and the 1 kg one would be 90.90909 m from it, the 1 kg one having moved with a greater velocity than the 10 kg one and having moved a much greater distance than the 10 kg one, thus, they are clearly not interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis.
You're really digging in your heels!  You are bound and determined to learn nothing.  That's fine, if believing in fantasies is what you want then knock your socks off, but I sure don't see the point in wallowing in ignorance. [shrug]
Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Centra on 30/01/2022 16:53:17
And at the point when they were 100 m apart the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 m from the barycenter and the 1 kg one would be 90.90909 m from it, the 1 kg one having moved with a greater velocity than the 10 kg one and having moved a much greater distance than the 10 kg one, thus, they are clearly not interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis.
You're really digging in your heels!  You are bound and determined to learn nothing.  That's fine, if believing in fantasies is what you want then knock your socks off, but I sure don't see the point in wallowing in ignorance. [shrug]
You think I come here to learn? I know how to use Google. This is just something to do to pass the time, I don't care if you agree with what I write or not, but your snide comments sure are annoying so why don't you go annoy someone else. Actually you stay if you want because I'm not going to bother with this anymore, really not at all enjoyable so bye.
Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Origin on 30/01/2022 17:03:51
You think I come here to learn? I know how to use Google. This is just something to do to pass the time, I don't care if you agree with what I write or not
Just a troll.  Reported as such.
Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2022 17:15:01
I'm not going to bother with this anymore, really not at all enjoyable so bye.
Unless he's barred, I'd bet against him keeping that promise.
Title: Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory
Post by: Kryptid on 30/01/2022 17:23:13
Uh, you need a source for something which is obvious?

If it's really "obvious", then you'll have no problem providing a source to back up your claim. So please do so.

So I guess you couldn't back that claim up with a source?
Title: Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory
Post by: Kartazion on 30/01/2022 20:03:49
Here is my new and original theory, called The Illusion of Velocity Theory. One facet of the theory is that light in one inertial frame of reference cannot have true velocity in another inertial frame of reference in relative motion to it unless the source is located in one and the receptor in the other. The perception that light has velocity in the inertial frame of an observer if both the source and receptor are in another inertial frame which is in motion relative to it is an illusion, thus, the title "The Illusion of Velocity Theory". If the source is in one frame and the receptor in another in motion relative to it, velocity can only be measured if the person measuring it knows the distance and time between the two, which is rarely the case, since those parameters would be constantly changing and the observer would need to be in contact with observers in the other frame to have the information required to define the parameters, so generally any perception of velocity of light, or anything else, in one frame from another in relative motion to it is illusory.
...
...

The velocity illusion is caused by the movement of the inertial frame of reference in relation to the other frame of reference. But it is a paradox to create an illusion of velocity by a motion. No?