[David Cooper]

How convenient it is that any and all experiments and observations that show results that are in conflict with that which you believe all involve measurement errors. This despite the fact that science knows perfectly well how to to account for error margins, and allow for them in their results.

There's a difference between errors in measurements and errors in interpretations of the results of experiments. SR/GR and LET predict the same measurements, so anyone looking for errors in the measurements isn't going to find them unless both approaches are wrong (which would be awkward as they're the only serious candidates). We can distinguish between them though and label one approach as rational and the other irrational because one of them tolerates contradictions while the other doesn't. All else being equal, a theory that generates contradictions is always inferior to a theory that doesn't, and that's the situation we're in here. Einstein's SR embraces contradictions while Lorentz's rejects them.

[David Cooper]

Define stationary.

Half way between moving at c in one direction and c in the opposite direction.

Define absolute.

In the context of an absolute frame, it's the frame that makes correct assertions about the speed of light relative to the objects in that space rather than making incorrect assertions.

Absolutes are usually values that bound other values and cannot actually be reached. So following that reasoning there cannot be an absolute rest frame. It is a boundary condition.

"Absolute frame" is just a convenient name for "the frame which makes correct assertions about the speed of light relative to the objects in that space and which thereby does not misrepresent reality". There can be such a frame, while all other frames misrepresent reality by asserting that the speed of light relative to some objects in some directions has values which are not correct. The assertions that different frames make about these relative speeds are not compatible with the assertions made by other frames. Einstein's approach is to say that they are all equally true (which means he accepts an infinite number of contradictions) while Lorentz says that only one frame tells the truth and that the others are all misrepresentations of reality. Sagnac and MGP show us that light must travel past some material at speeds higher than c relative to it, and in doing so they show up the elementary mistake that most people have made in imagining that the contradictions in the accounts generated by different frames aren't contradictions. They most certainly are contradictions, and anyone who doesn't understand that is being plain irrational, failing to conform to the rules of mathematics.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

So you're positing a conspiracy theory now?

Nope. It's not conspiracy theory if it's true.

[Kryptid]

Nope. It's not conspiracy theory if it's true.

So you believe that every time an experimental observation supporting Einstein's theories is published in a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, the results were knowingly fabricated by the research team. Right...

[David Cooper]

So you believe that every time an experimental observation supporting Einstein's theories is published in a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, the results were knowingly fabricated by the research team. Right...

You must have seen all the experiments where the scientific press announces "Einstein's theory confirmed again!" - they never say "Lorentz's theory is confirmed again", even though it makes the same predictions. You'd also expect them to use a less biased wording like "Einstein's theory survives another test". If they weren't biased though, you would also see headlines like "Einstein's theory incompatible with Sagnac due to contradictions", but you never get that from them, even though Sagnac demonstrates that there must be an absolute frame.

The reality is that we have a physics establishment which simply ignores anything that goes against its required beliefs on this specific point. How this Einstein mind virus became so strongly entrenched, I do not understand, but it is clearly driven by the exact same irrationality as religious beliefs where people simply refuse to recognise a proof when it's set before their eyes. A correct analysis of Sagnac demonstrates that light does not travel past all objects at c relative to them, but that it travels at >c relative to some objects, and this proves that some frames (all but one of them) are misrepresentations of reality. Failure to recognise that is the abandonment of mathematics and reason in favour of an irrationality which is so extreme as to assert that 1=2, 2=30, -500=3.14, and indeed that any value equals any other value you care to name. In reality, if light moves at c relative to all objects, no objects can move relative to each other at all and the universe doesn't function.

[Kryptid]

You must have seen all the experiments where the scientific press announces "Einstein's theory confirmed again!" - they never say "Lorentz's theory is confirmed again", even though it makes the same predictions. You'd also expect them to use a less biased wording like "Einstein's theory survives another test". If they weren't biased though, you would also see headlines like "Einstein's theory incompatible with Sagnac due to contradictions", but you never get that from them, even though Sagnac demonstrates that there must be an absolute frame.

The reality is that we have a physics establishment which simply ignores anything that goes against its required beliefs on this specific point. How this Einstein mind virus became so strongly entrenched, I do not understand, but it is clearly driven by the exact same irrationality as religious beliefs where people simply refuse to recognise a proof when it's set before their eyes. A correct analysis of Sagnac demonstrates that light does not travel past all objects at c relative to them, but that it travels at >c relative to some objects, and this proves that some frames (all but one of them) are misrepresentations of reality. Failure to recognise that is the abandonment of mathematics and reason in favour of an irrationality which is so extreme as to assert that 1=2, 2=30, -500=3.14, and indeed that any value equals any other value you care to name. In reality, if light moves at c relative to all objects, no objects can move relative to each other at all and the universe doesn't function.

So that's two people in this thread that believe there is a conspiracy in the science establishment to write up phony data each and every time that they publish peer-reviewed literature regarding relativity.

[David Cooper]

So that's two people in this thread that believe there is a conspiracy in the science establishment to write up phony data each and every time that they publish peer-reviewed literature regarding relativity.

You've just demonstrated that you can't count. The data isn't phony - it doesn't need to be because Lorentz makes the exact same predictions as Einstein. Any experiment that "confirms" Einstein does not in reality confirm his theory at all, but merely shows itself to be compatible both with his theory and with Lorentz's. Dressed.scientist is tripping up on things where he imagines that experiments are producing bad results where they aren't. The rest of you are tripping up by failing to apply mathematics consistently - you should be acknowledging that (a) light passes some objects at >c relative to them, and (b) some frames of reference are therefore misrepresentations of reality because they make incorrect assertions about the speed of light relative to such objects. But you won't do that because you don't want to go against the establishment, so you go against mathematics instead.

[Kryptid]

You've just demonstrated that you can't count. The data isn't phony - it doesn't need to be because Lorentz makes the exact same predictions as Einstein. Any experiment that "confirms" Einstein does not in reality confirm his theory at all, but merely shows itself to be compatible both with his theory and with Lorentz's.

So Lorentz came up with all of the same ideas as Einstein?

Dressed.scientist is tripping up on things where he imagines that experiments are producing bad results where they aren't. The rest of you are tripping up by failing to apply mathematics consistently - you should be acknowledging that (a) light passes some objects at >c relative to them, and (b) some frames of reference are therefore misrepresentations of reality because they make incorrect assertions about the speed of light relative to such objects. But you won't do that because you don't want to go against the establishment, so you go against mathematics instead.

That would depend on which reference frames you are talking about. From my own reference frame, I can certainly see a beam of light moving faster than light relative to the motion of another object if both the light beam and moving object are moving in opposite directions. But that isn't the kind of superluminal velocity that relativity forbids, so it's not a problem.

[David Cooper]

So Lorentz came up with all of the same ideas as Einstein?

An alternative theory using the same maths but with a radically different interpretation.

That would depend on which reference frames you are talking about.

It covers all reference frames - they all contradict each other and only one of them can be a true representation of reality while the rest generate incorrect assertions.

From my own reference frame, I can certainly see a beam of light moving faster than light relative to the motion of another object if both the light beam and moving object are moving in opposite directions. But that isn't the kind of superluminal velocity that relativity forbids, so it's not a problem.

How is it not a problem? You accept that this kind of superluminal relative speed between light and an object is not forbidden, so you're nearly there. Ask yourself what happens when a fibre-optic ring with light going round this circuit in opposite directions is rotating in such a manner that light sent from an emitter in opposite directions returns to the emitter as two pulses rather than one. One lot of light has passed through all the material of the ring at a higher speed relative to it than the other lot of light. This gives us a guarantee that the speed of light relative to some of that material was higher than c in one direction, and as soon as we accept that fact, we are forced to accept that any frame that represents the light passing through that material at c rather than >c is misrepresenting reality. Once we have accepted that point, we can extend it to show that only one frame can be a true representation of reality. The rejection of any part of this argument is a departure from mathematics.

[Kryptid]

they all contradict each other and only one of them can be a true representation of reality while the rest generate incorrect assertions.

This sounds more like a philosophical argument than anything else. I see no reason why there must be only one correct reference frame. Each reference frame seems to be an equally valid description of the Universe.

How is it not a problem?

Relativity only says that you cannot see objects relative to your own reference as moving faster than light. The moving object I mentioned moving away from the light beam in my earlier post would still see that beam of light as moving only at the speed of light thanks to length contraction and time dilation.

You accept that this kind of superluminal relative speed between light and an object is not forbidden, so you're nearly there. Ask yourself what happens when a fibre-optic ring with light going round this circuit in opposite directions is rotating in such a manner that light sent from an emitter in opposite directions returns to the emitter as two pulses rather than one. One lot of light has passed through all the material of the ring at a higher speed relative to it than the other lot of light. This gives us a guarantee that the speed of light relative to some of that material was higher than c in one direction, and as soon as we accept that fact, we are forced to accept that any frame that represents the light passing through that material at c rather than >c is misrepresenting reality. Once we have accepted that point, we can extend it to show that only one frame can be a true representation of reality. The rejection of any part of this argument is a departure from mathematics.

From our perspective outside the rotating ring, we would indeed see the two beams of light arrive at the emitter at different times. But we are third party observers: nothing in our reference frame is actually moving faster than light relative to us. The same is true for the emitter. The emitter would still see the two beams of light moving at a speed equal to each other and both beams would arrive back at the emitter at the same time. That's relativity of simultaneity.

[David Cooper]

This sounds more like a philosophical argument than anything else.

Is the argument that 1=2 a philosophical argument? That's the one that your side is inadvertently making in order to justify SR. In mathematics, 1=2 is an illegal move.

I see no reason why there must be only one correct reference frame. Each reference frame seems to be an equally valid description of the Universe.

If some material has the property that light passes it at >c relative to it in one direction, any frame which asserts that it doesn't is a direct misrepresentation of reality and not a valid description of the universe. SR is automatically invalidated by this distinction between frames which misrepresent reality and frames that don't. Anyone who clings to SR is being irrational and has allowed science to be contaminated with voodoo. In a case where we can't tell which material has this property but where we can tell that some of the material in play must have this property (as is the case here where more than half of the material of the ring must have this property at any point in time), we can can take any two opposite points on the ring and say that if one of those points does not have that property, the other point must have it. If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to the first point in all directions is c, that frame can only be a true representation of reality if the frame of reference which asserts that the other point has that property (that light moves relative to it at c in all directions) is not a true representation of reality. It is not possible for both of these frames to be equally valid descriptions of the universe when at least one of them is misrepresenting the truth. This is utterly straightforward mathematics and it should not be written off as "philosophy" (unless you want to write off mathematics in the same careless manner).

From our perspective outside the rotating ring, we would indeed see the two beams of light arrive at the emitter at different times. But we are third party observers: nothing in our reference frame is actually moving faster than light relative to us. The same is true for the emitter. The emitter would still see the two beams of light moving at a speed equal to each other and both beams would arrive back at the emitter at the same time. That's relativity of simultaneity.

Be careful not to go against the results of experiments - there is no way that an observer at the emitter would record the two lots of light returning to him simultaneously. No observers see the two lots of light return to the emitter simultaneously. ALL observers measure that one lot of light has passed through the material of the ring at a speed >c in one direction relative to it and <c in the other direction.

[Kryptid]

Is the argument that 1=2 a philosophical argument? That's the one that your side is inadvertently making in order to justify SR. In mathematics, 1=2 is an illegal move.

Except relativity isn't asserting that 1=2, it's asserting that the Universe is literally structured differently between different reference frames. The length of an object might be 1 foot in one reference frame and 2 feet in another. It would only be saying that 1=2 if it asserted that the object was both 1 foot long and 2 feet long in the same reference frame.

If some material has the property that light passes it at >c relative to it in one direction, any frame which asserts that it doesn't is a direct misrepresentation of reality and not a valid description of the universe. SR is automatically invalidated by this distinction between frames which misrepresent reality and frames that don't. Anyone who clings to SR is being irrational and has allowed science to be contaminated with voodoo. In a case where we can't tell which material has this property but where we can tell that some of the material in play must have this property (as is the case here where more than half of the material of the ring must have this property at any point in time), we can can take any two opposite points on the ring and say that if one of those points does not have that property, the other point must have it. If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to the first point in all directions is c, that frame can only be a true representation of reality if the frame of reference which asserts that the other point has that property (that light moves relative to it at c in all directions) is not a true representation of reality. It is not possible for both of these frames to be equally valid descriptions of the universe when at least one of them is misrepresenting the truth. This is utterly straightforward mathematics and it should not be written off as "philosophy" (unless you want to write off mathematics in the same careless manner).

It sounds like the problem is that you are starting with the assumption that there must be only one true reference frame and that any other references frames that don't conform to this arbitrarily chosen reference frame are wrong. Experiments designed to search for a preferred reference frame (like the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment) have failed to find evidence for it.

Be careful not to go against the results of experiments

When was an experiment ever performed where an observer measured light in a vacuum travelling either faster than or slower than c relative to the observer?

[guest4091]

David Cooper;
Here is some math.
If you find an error, point it out, and I'll correct it.

LT to rel vel.pdf (28.41 kB - downloaded 111 times)

[David Cooper]

Except relativity isn't asserting that 1=2,

It's doing exactly that when it claims that all reference frames are equally valid. All frames contradict all other frames - the assertions they make about the speed of light relative to objects are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

it's asserting that the Universe is literally structured differently between different reference frames.

It's asserting contradictory things and asserting that they can all be true at once. The way the top people justify this though is to use Minkowski Spacetime where every object can have an infinite number of different lengths without there being any contradiction, although the unfortunate consequence of this is that light reduces all of its journeys to zero length and zero time and becomes speedless, but there are fatal consequences which rule such models out too, either through event-meshing failures or through the inability to build a block universe under the rules of SR (if you go for a block universe version to try to avoid the event-meshing failures).

The length of an object might be 1 foot in one reference frame and 2 feet in another. It would only be saying that 1=2 if it asserted that the object was both 1 foot long and 2 feet long in the same reference frame.

Only in a Minkowski Spacetime model. There are only three SR models worthy of consideration which are all incompatible with each other, and all three have fatal faults that rule them out. If we're working with a model where the speed of light relative to objects is c rather than infinite or zero, then we are clearly not dealing with a Minkowski Spacetime model, so you need to stop mixing incompatible models here and trying to inject properties of one model into a different model where they don't belong. With non-Minkowski Spacetime (Einstein's original conception), all frames make assertions which are incompatible with the assertions made by other frames. If you want to try to refute that by switching to a Minkowski model, that's an illegal move - the models are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

It sounds like the problem is that you are starting with the assumption that there must be only one true reference frame and that any other references frames that don't conform to this arbitrarily chosen reference frame are wrong.

No. I start with the SR models, then test them by their own rules to see if they function as claimed. None of them do - it is impossible to simulate any of them without cheating by bringing in extra rules that are forbidden in the model, and that shows that the models are wrong.

Experiments designed to search for a preferred reference frame (like the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment) have failed to find evidence for it.

No one has designed any experiment that could be capable of detecting an absolute frame precisely because relativity (Lorentzian relativity) completely masks any differences that you are hoping to find. If you explore the maths of it properly, you'll be able to understand mechanistically why this must be the case. The only way to get round that detection barrier would require faster than light communication to enable clocks to be synchronised properly, at which point the absolute frame would immediately be revealed.

When was an experiment ever performed where an observer measured light in a vacuum travelling either faster than or slower than c relative to the observer?

No experiment can do that - Lorentzian relativity always makes it look as if it's passing you at c by slowing your functionality down if you're moving fast and by mis-synchronising your clocks if you set up an array of them. You have to be much more clever than that to avoid being deceived by nature, and that's where Sagnac and Michelson Gale Pearson come to the rescue by proving to us that light passes some objects at speeds other than c relative to them, including relative speeds higher than c.

Here's the crucial thought experiment (backed by experiment through Sagnac and MGP):-

A ring of fibre-optic cable rotates anticlockwise. Light is emitted from an observer who moves with part of the cable. He sends a flash of blue light off anticlockwise through the cable and he simultaneously sends a flash of red light off clockwise. The red flash returns to him first (from the opposite side to the one he sent it out on), and then the blue flash returns to him the other way. He has observed the red flash return to him first, and every other observer in any other frame has made the same observation.

Now for the questions (the answers provided are for non-Minkowski Spacetime):-

(A) Did the red light pass through all the material of the ring of cable more quickly than the blue light?

Answer: yes.

(B) Is the cable the same length in both directions round it?

Answer: yes.

(C) Does the red light pass through that material at a higher speed relative to it than the blue light does?

Answer: yes.

(D) Does the red light pass through that material at a speed higher than c relative to it?

Answer: yes.

(E) Is there material in the ring which has the property that light passes it at >c in some directions relative to it?

Answer: yes.

(F) If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to such material with that property is c in all directions, is it misrepresenting reality?

Answer: yes.

So, do you disagree with any of my answers? If not, then you should agree with me that the non-Minkowski Spacetime SR has been disproved on the basis that some frames are not valid because they misrepresent reality. If you disagree with that, you've parted company with mathematics. If you agree though, then we have ruled out one of the SR models and can move on to the other models (which we can eliminate in other ways).

[zmth]

basically NOt.

[Kryptid]

It's doing exactly that when it claims that all reference frames are equally valid. All frames contradict all other frames - the assertions they make about the speed of light relative to objects are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

It's asserting contradictory things and asserting that they can all be true at once. The way the top people justify this though is to use Minkowski Spacetime where every object can have an infinite number of different lengths without there being any contradiction, although the unfortunate consequence of this is that light reduces all of its journeys to zero length and zero time and becomes speedless, but there are fatal consequences which rule such models out too, either through event-meshing failures or through the inability to build a block universe under the rules of SR (if you go for a block universe version to try to avoid the event-meshing failures).

Only in a Minkowski Spacetime model. There are only three SR models worthy of consideration which are all incompatible with each other, and all three have fatal faults that rule them out. If we're working with a model where the speed of light relative to objects is c rather than infinite or zero, then we are clearly not dealing with a Minkowski Spacetime model, so you need to stop mixing incompatible models here and trying to inject properties of one model into a different model where they don't belong. With non-Minkowski Spacetime (Einstein's original conception), all frames make assertions which are incompatible with the assertions made by other frames. If you want to try to refute that by switching to a Minkowski model, that's an illegal move - the models are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

So what if observers in different frames disagree about what they see? Big deal. I would only consider that to be a problem if you could produce paradoxes of some kind (something like, say, a coin lands heads in one reference frame and tails in another).

No. I start with the SR models, then test them by their own rules to see if they function as claimed. None of them do - it is impossible to simulate any of them without cheating by bringing in extra rules that are forbidden in the model, and that shows that the models are wrong.

Color me skeptical. If what you say is true then I'm sure the "top people" as you call them would have realized as much a long time ago and relativity would have never become popularly accepted to begin with. There would have been no motivation to accept it.

No one has designed any experiment that could be capable of detecting an absolute frame precisely because relativity (Lorentzian relativity) completely masks any differences that you are hoping to find. If you explore the maths of it properly, you'll be able to understand mechanistically why this must be the case. The only way to get round that detection barrier would require faster than light communication to enable clocks to be synchronised properly, at which point the absolute frame would immediately be revealed.

No experiment can do that - Lorentzian relativity always makes it look as if it's passing you at c by slowing your functionality down if you're moving fast and by mis-synchronising your clocks if you set up an array of them.

That's pretty much what I've been saying this whole time.

You have to be much more clever than that to avoid being deceived by nature, and that's where Sagnac and Michelson Gale Pearson come to the rescue by proving to us that light passes some objects at speeds other than c relative to them, including relative speeds higher than c.

When did either of those experiments demonstrate that light in a vacuum.moves at a speed different than c relative to any part of those devices in that device's reference frame? Please keep in mind that I am not talking about how fast relative velocities look to us standing outside of the device.

Here's the crucial thought experiment (backed by experiment through Sagnac and MGP):-

A ring of fibre-optic cable rotates anticlockwise. Light is emitted from an observer who moves with part of the cable. He sends a flash of blue light off anticlockwise through the cable and he simultaneously sends a flash of red light off clockwise. The red flash returns to him first (from the opposite side to the one he sent it out on), and then the blue flash returns to him the other way.

He has observed the red flash return to him first, and every other observer in any other frame has made the same observation.

What about an observer on the rotating ring itself?

Now for the questions (the answers provided are for non-Minkowski Spacetime):-

(A) Did the red light pass through all the material of the ring of cable more quickly than the blue light?

Answer: yes.

Only in our reference frame outside of the device.

(C) Does the red light pass through that material at a higher speed relative to it than the blue light does?

Answer: yes.

Only in our reference frame outside of the device.

(D) Does the red light pass through that material at a speed higher than c relative to it?

Answer: yes.

Only in our reference frame outside of the device.

(E) Is there material in the ring which has the property that light passes it at >c in some directions relative to it?

Answer: yes.

One in our reference frame outside of the device.

(F) If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to such material with that property is c in all directions, is it misrepresenting reality?

Answer: yes.

No.

So, do you disagree with any of my answers? If not, then you should agree with me that the non-Minkowski Spacetime SR has been disproved on the basis that some frames are not valid because they misrepresent reality. If you disagree with that, you've parted company with mathematics. If you agree though, then we have ruled out one of the SR models and can move on to the other models (which we can eliminate in other ways).

You said yourself that "Lorentzian relativity always makes it look as if it's passing you at c", so you've already agreed that any attempt to measure the speed of the red and blue light beams with a device aboard the spinning fiber optic cable itself will not measure the red and blue light as travelling at velocities different from c.

[David Cooper]

David Cooper;
Here is some math.
If you find an error, point it out, and I'll correct it.

LT to rel vel.pdf (28.41 kB - downloaded 111 times)

If it merely expands on the question it begins with ("Is an absolute rest frame U, necessary for measurements involving translational/inertial motion within Special Relativity?"), then it's likely that it contains no error. If it's relevant to the question of the actual speed of light relative to objects, let me know how.

[David Cooper]

So what if observers in different frames disagree about what they see? Big deal. I would only consider that to be a problem if you could produce paradoxes of some kind (something like, say, a coin lands heads in one reference frame and tails in another).

Imagine that there's a coin in a box sitting on a planet which is impossible to open and impossible to see inside. One person claims that heads is up, while another claims it's tails. Because it's impossible to find out the answer, a third person claims that both answers are right. "So what if they disagree!" he says: "Big deal!"

No. I start with the SR models, then test them by their own rules to see if they function as claimed. None of them do - it is impossible to simulate any of them without cheating by bringing in extra rules that are forbidden in the model, and that shows that the models are wrong.

Color me skeptical. If what you say is true then I'm sure the "top people" as you call them would have realized as much a long time ago and relativity would have never become popularly accepted to begin with. There would have been no motivation to accept it.

You should always be sceptical, but I put an open challenge out years ago for anyone to find a simulation of SR that doesn't cheat, and plenty of physicists have seen that challenge. No one has found such a simulation, and no one is able to write one either, even though it would be really simple to do this if they were right: all they have to do is show how they handle the Twins "Paradox" while simulating it from start to finish. It's an impossible task though, so they cannot do it. It If they run it on the original rules of SR, they have to pick the time of one frame of reference to govern the unfolding of events for objects moving through that frame, which means they're producing an LET simulation and passing it off as SR. If they run it on the rules of Minkowski Spacetime with a running kind of time, they get event-meshing failures (at which point they delete their code and pretend it never happened). If they run it on the rules of Minkowski Spacetime without a running time (i.e. a block universe version), they can then produce a lovely simulation that appears to function fine, until you ask them to simulate the generation of the block, at which point they discover that they can't generate it under those rules and that they have to go back to the rules of LET. What we actually get from these jokers is a false belief system which they defend by mixing incompatible models, using different ones to show how different aspects of SR supposedly work, but they can't do the job with any single model (and mixing the models is cheating because they are fundamentally incompatible, contradicting each other on the nature of reality).

That's pretty much what I've been saying this whole time.

In which case you shouldn't be using the impossibility of detecting the absolute frame as proof of its non-existence. You should focus instead on trying to break the mathematical proof that the absolute frame must exist.

When did either of those experiments demonstrate that light in a vacuum.moves at a speed different than c relative to any part of those devices in that device's reference frame? Please keep in mind that I am not talking about how fast relative velocities look to us standing outside of the device.

You're not going to deny the results of these experiments, are you? MGP wasn't done with a ring round the Earth's axis, but we've done the experiment in plenty of other ways since where we send signals round the planet in a vacuum and confirm that they get back to the moving emitter in less time in one direction than the other. At the points where the signal is bounced to take it round the corners, it is moving relative to the satellite that bouncing it, and it's moving faster relative to them in one direction than the other (assuming the satellites are all orbiting in the same direction). We've done more than enough of these experiments to know that what I've set out in my thought experiment is correct, and if you have a problem with the fibre-optic cable, you can replace that with a hollow cable with a reflective inner surface and vacuum in the middle.

What about an observer on the rotating ring itself?

Isn't that what we're dealing with already? If it makes it easier for you, just make the emitter-detector the observer.

(A) Did the red light pass through all the material of the ring of cable more quickly than the blue light?

Answer: yes.

Only in our reference frame outside of the device.

In what universe is there a reference frame which allows an observer to see the red and blue light return to the detector simultaneously or in a different order? Observers in all reference frames measure that the red light passed through all the material of the ring of the cable more quickly than the blue light - there is no possible alternative to this. Show me a counterexample to this claim if you think you're right.

(C) Does the red light pass through that material at a higher speed relative to it than the blue light does?

Answer: yes.

Only in our reference frame outside of the device.

Observers in all frames measure the blue light taking longer to pass through the material of the ring than the red light. Show me a counterexample to this claim if you think you're right.

(D) Does the red light pass through that material at a speed higher than c relative to it?

Answer: yes.

Only in our reference frame outside of the device.

Show me a frame of reference in which the red light doesn't pass through that material at a speed higher than c relative to it. There is no such frame, so if you're sure you're right, you should have no trouble proving me wrong.

(E) Is there material in the ring which has the property that light passes it at >c in some directions relative to it?

Answer: yes.

One in our reference frame outside of the device.

Assuming you mean "only" rather than "one", again I ask you to show me a frame where this is not the case. No such frame exists.

(F) If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to such material with that property is c in all directions, is it misrepresenting reality?

Answer: yes.

No.

And you've failed every question in the exam. How do you think you're in a position to judge the validity of SR when you can't even get the right answers to questions where the answers are already provided for you? But congratulations for giving it a go - most people don't dare to take it on at all because they can see that the answers I've provided are correct, so they stay silent and hope that it will all go away.

You said yourself that "Lorentzian relativity always makes it look as if it's passing you at c", so you've already agreed that any attempt to measure the speed of the red and blue light beams with a device aboard the spinning fiber optic cable itself will not measure the red and blue light as travelling at velocities different from c.

If light is passing you and you try to measure its speed relative to you directly, you will get the answer c, but this will happen even if the real value is nearer to 0 or 2c. What I realised though after looking at MGP is that we can make a very revealing measurement which proves that the speed of light relative to some material is greater than c, and that's all it takes to disprove one of the three categories of SR model (the other two being disproved in other ways, as referred to earlier). The red light passes through all the material of the ring (or if we're dealing with a vacuum ring, it passes through all the sectors of the ring) in less time then the blue light does, and it is measured as doing that by observers in all frames. If you want to try to use length contraction as a get-out, it won't work - I've already explained in another thread here why that makes the situation worse for you rather than better. If you want to read up on that, you can find the thread here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72989.0 - it contains another version of the thought experiment where the ring is simplified to a linear system, so that simplifies the calculations if you want to explore the length contraction issues.

[Kryptid]

This is like debating Thebox...

I'm done.

[David Cooper]

This is like debating Thebox...

I'm done.

In other words, you can't find any frame of reference that fits with your incorrect assertions, even though you claimed repeatedly that only one frame fits with what I said. The reality is that when I said all frames fit what I said, all frames fit what I said - that's the reason you can't find a counterexample.

Is there anyone rational in science who's prepared to do things properly, or do they all just run away when they're shown to be wrong while making out that they won an argument they lost? It's exactly the same as arguing with religious people who refuse to reason and reject straightforward mathematics. It's beyond shocking. How did science get into this sorry state?