[Bored chemist]

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.

[Centra (OP)]

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, .

[Bored chemist]

I'm not entirely sure I was wrong

Ask around and see what you find out.

[Centra (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Centra (OP)]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[Centra (OP)]

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"?

[Bored chemist]

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

[Origin]

Ever hear the saying "question everything"?

Yep.  Ever hear the saying "listen to the experts"?

[Centra (OP)]

Ever hear the saying "question everything"?

Yep.  Ever hear the saying "listen to the experts"?

No, that's a new one, I must admit.

[Centra (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

I formulated a new theory alright

Where?

[Centra (OP)]

I formulated a new theory alright

Where?

It's invisible, it's the invisible theory.

[Centra (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Halc]

As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity predictions

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.

General involves gravity and Special doesn't.

Well, strictly, it's any acceleration, rather than specifically gravity but...

Now it's BC posting the tosh. Centra is quite correct about his statement: SR involves cases where gravity isn't involved.

The thing is that you seem to realise that SR does not apply to an accelerated frame.

Of course it does. The whole Rindler frame can be derived from SR. There's no gravity involved.

GR deals with the Sagnac effect.

SR handles it fine. There is no Sagnac effect with GPS, but GR is needed for accurate description of GPS since gravity is involved.

Careful BC. You're so used to disagreeing with anything that a troll posts that you don't realize when he's right about a couple things.

[Centra (OP)]

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"?

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 , 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.

 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.
https://jphysrad.journaldephysique.org/articles/jphysrad/abs/1942/09/jphysrad_1942__3_9_153_0/jphysrad_1942__3_9_153_0.html