1
Just Chat! / What do you Think of our Current World? How Good/Bad is it?
« on: 13/10/2022 01:16:52 »
What do you Think of our Current World? How Good/Bad is it?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Here is my new and original theory, published nowhere else, I call it The Illusion of Velocity Theory. Essentially, 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.
... Please only one preposterous, outlandish claim per thread.It is the observational results that are outlandish, not their interpretations.