0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 09:44:44No. Because it's a well known scientific fact, that moving things appear distorted for a stationary observerWhich has absolutely nothing to do with the thought experiment in my example.
No. Because it's a well known scientific fact, that moving things appear distorted for a stationary observer
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 09:44:44In my model ALL inertial frames ARE valid. Moving frames are the invalid onesWhat are you talking about? Every single inertial frame is a moving frame relative to another inertial frame.
In my model ALL inertial frames ARE valid. Moving frames are the invalid ones
I have presented 2 scenarios that based on your hypothesis give impossible results. In the most recent scenario I have given you 2 space time diagrams to clearly show that your hypothesis is incorrect. Are you claiming the space time diagrams were wrong? If so please point out exactly where there is an error and we can discuss it. If the diagrams are correct, then your hypothesis is incorrect. At that point you could admit that your hypothesis is wrong, which means you are still doing science or you could ignore the things that show your hypothesis is wrong in which case you will be doing pseudoscience. I hope you pick science.
It has everything to do with your example.
Yes. But the only valid results are the one observed by receiver in HIS inertial frame
And you obviously are unable to understand the difference between moving and inertial frames.
I don't know if you noticed, but you're the only one here, who can't understand the basic principles in my model
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 16:40:55It has everything to do with your example.Nope.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 16:40:55Yes. But the only valid results are the one observed by receiver in HIS inertial frameNope.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 16:40:55And you obviously are unable to understand the difference between moving and inertial frames. A frame that is moving at a constant speed is what an inertial frame is!
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 16:40:55I don't know if you noticed, but you're the only one here, who can't understand the basic principles in my modelWhat I noticed is that you have realized (at some level) that your idea is wrong, but you won't admit it. Apparently you would rather live the fantasy that you have made an amazing scientific discovery. Seems like a waste of time to me
Origin is trying to help you out of the hole you are digging for yourself and therefore should be commended for the effort. You, on the other hand, obstinately refuse to admit you are wrong. That is what children do before they grow up. Would you like a lollipop?
Quote from: jeffreyH on 01/05/2021 17:20:28Origin is trying to help you out of the hole you are digging for yourself and therefore should be commended for the effort. You, on the other hand, obstinately refuse to admit you are wrong. That is what children do before they grow up. Would you like a lollipop?I will admit being wrong, when my predictions will be refuted by experiments or real-life obsrvations - and as for now, nothing like this happened. As for now, my predictions seem to make much more logical sense, than those predicted by SRT
Let me help you
Inertial frame of receiver: valid result
Moving frame of receiver: invalid result
Then won't waste your time any more, because to me it seems, that you're not the brightest star on the nightsky. I spoke with smarter people on this forum and i seems, that in the difference to you, they were smart enough, to understand the basic mechanics of my model...
So why is the second space time diagram 'invalid'? In the first space time diagram the receiver is at rest and the ship is in motion and in the second space time diagram the ship is at rest and the receiver is in motion. This exactly the way to represent the 2 frames.
It is invalid because:1. moving frame of the receiver is distorted due to it's motion
speed of light is immeasurable i one-directional motion and the space ship can't know the time at which light is reaching the receivcer without getting that information from the receiver (what leads to two-dirctional motion path for light)
Sorry for me being rude, but I really don't like to repeat myself over and over again...
I have it both ways and those diagrams should explain everything.
I really feel, like I would be talking with a 10yo kid...
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 15:58:02Sorry for me being rude, but I really don't like to repeat myself over and over again...Then stop repeating incorrect information.In the second diagram the green line (please label your additions) which presumably is the light beam, travels 2 light years in 4 years. That obviously means that the light was traveling at .5c, so that means the second diagram violates your own postulates. That's a rather large problem.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 15:58:02I have it both ways and those diagrams should explain everything.Sorry, the explanation is not logical using your postulates. QuoteI really feel, like I would be talking with a 10yo kid...There is no need for personal attacks.
There is absolutely no reason or attempt to measure the speed of light in the example. We know based on your postulate that the speed of light is c in all frames. The diagrams are a accurate depiction of your postulates, no need to measure the speed of light in either frame. In the first diagram the light takes 4 years to reach the receiver and in the second diagram the light takes 2.7 years.
The problem is, that you just seem to be unable to understand basic facts about the constant speed of light.
And you don't understand, that to know the time at which light reaches the moving sensor, you actually have to measure it's speed
That statement is wrong for 2 reasons:1. Your postulate states that the speed of light is c in all reference frames. In other words it is not possible that the speed of light is not c. There is no need to measure it, it is always c.
2. All the clocks tick at the same rate regardless of their inertial frame in your relativity. So before the experiment we synchronize the clocks. That means when the laser fires we can write down the date and time and when the laser hits the receiver somebody at the receiver station can give us a call and tell us the time and date it arrived. All we have to do is compare these 2 times.
I am anxiously awaiting your answer as to why you drew the speed of light at 0.5c on your last diagram.
My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frameIt is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver
No. My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.
It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frameIt is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver
Why? Because constant c is immeasurable in one direction.... I'm telling this for 100'th time already
My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frame
It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 20:43:30No. My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.By definition every observer can only be in their own frame.
QuoteQuoteIt IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frameIt is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiverSorry but that means not every observer (in their own frame of course) will say the speed of light is c.Yes - but in relation to him and not to a moving frameI see you are still not answering my question I asked.I asked, "Why did you draw the speed of light at 0.5c on your diagram in post #169".You answered:QuoteQuote from: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 20:52:19Why? Because constant c is immeasurable in one direction.... I'm telling this for 100'th time alreadySeriously, the speed of light is 0.5c because you can't measure the speed of light. In what universe does this make sense?
QuoteIt IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frameIt is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiverSorry but that means not every observer (in their own frame of course) will say the speed of light is c.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 20:52:19Why? Because constant c is immeasurable in one direction.... I'm telling this for 100'th time alreadySeriously, the speed of light is 0.5c because you can't measure the speed of light. In what universe does this make sense?
Listen closely, YOU drew the speed of light as 0.5 c in the space time diagram in frame of the spaceship. That means the speed of light in that frame is not always c. For the love of god, don't tell me its because you can't measure the speed of light! If that was true all you could say is the speed is unknown. You didn't say it was unkown, you said it was 0.5c. It's really very simple, in the reference frame of the ship you said th speed of light is not c. That means your postulate that the speed of light is constant in all frames is incorrect.
You can wave your arms all you want and obfuscate all you want, I will simply show you your space time diagram that shows the speed of light is not c in the frame of the ship.
Let's review what an inertial frame is. An inertial frame is any frame that is not accelerating.Neither frame in my example is accelerating, so whatever the point of view of whatever frame you look at it will be an inertial frame.
The spaceship is in its own inertial frame in my example, and yet on the space time diagram of the spaceships frame you had the speed of light at 0.5 c
I really don't know what you are talking about. When comparing reference frames one of them will ALWAYS be moving relative to the other.