Post by: CrazyScientist on 05/04/2021 21:45:24
There's one main reason for the SRT to exist - it was created as an extension to Galilean relativity, after the speed of light was proven to be constant in vacuum. Apparently theoretical physicsts of that time couldn't figure out, how to incorporate the constant value of velocity c in the classical model of relative motion. Einstein used this opportunity, to come out with an alterntive theory of relativity, which he created with the sole purpose to combine the constant velocity of light with the relative motion of physical objects at velocities lower than c. And although both theories are completely inconsistent with each other, physicsts made a compromise and decided to use Galilean model in scenarios, where velocities of relative motion are much lower than the constant velocity c (so basically to deal with 95% of every day situations) and to use the Einstein's model, when objects are moving at relative velocities, that are high enough, to be described in relation to constant velocity c.
Obviously theoretical physicists aren't bothered too much by the fact, that both models of relativity give us results, that are contradicting each other, since in the last 100 years no one didn't try to look for any other solution to the problem of constant c in relative motion - no one except me, but since I'm not a professional physicist, it probably doesn't count...
I think, that the best way to do it, will be to solve some of the most basic scenarios using both Einstein's and Galilean models of relativity - scenario, which is presented here was one of the first ones, that landed on my virtual workbench.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrbFvp5x/diag1.jpg)
Here we have 2 objects, which are incoming towards each other at a relative velocity v=0,5c: A (red line) and B (blue line). A and B are exact copies of eachother and in this scenario can be treated at the same time as: a source of light, a sensor and a perfect mirror: Now let's say that both objects emit a single pulse of light and that in the rest frame of object A, both emissions take place simultaneously at t=0, when distance between both objects is equal to 3su (space units). The goal of this simple scenario is to compare timelines of all particular events as they are observed in the frames of A and B from the moment of light emission (at t=0 for A) up until both objects meet each other in a single point of 1D space (at t=6 for A).
GALILEAN RELATIVITY:
In classical relativity, in order to get a space-time diagram for the rest frame of a moving object, we have to modify the grid of space-time coordinates from the rest frame of a stationary observer - in relativity such operation is known as boosting. Since Galilean relativity is rooted deeply in the standard Newtonian mechanics, boosting is here based on the well known formula of velocity addition/subtraction.
Rest frame of A:
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrbFvp5x/diag1.jpg)
Rest frame of B:
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1hRft5M/zxz99yz.jpg)
According to the classical theory of relative motion, if for a stationary object A, second object is incoming towards it at relative veloctity v=0,5c, then for stationary object B, object A is incoming towards it at the same speed (0,5c), but in opposite direction. On the diagram above we can see that everything, what happens for A happens exactly in the same way for B. Simultaneity of events, just as all distances in space and all intervals of time remain exactly the same in both frames. The only difference here, is the opposite direction of relative motion - but since it doesn't affect any of the processes observed in both rest frames of A and B, it can be for now ignored.
Such transformation of coordinates has couple important consequences, which I will discuss soon enough. However as for now, I will point out 3 most important aspects of the results, which are predicted by classical model of relative motion:
A) If in the rest frame of A, simultaneous emissions of light take place at t=0, when the distance to incoming object B is equal to 3su, then in the rest frame of B those emissions will also happen simultaneously at t=0, when distance to incoming object A is equal to 3su
B) Since at the moment of light emission distance between A and B is in both frames equal to 3su and all photons are moving at a constant velocity c=1su/1tu, in both cases light emitted by the incoming object, will reach the second object 3tu after the simultaneous emission.
C) And finally, when both objects will meet each other in one point of 1D space (t=6), both of them will agree, that simultaneous emissions of light took place 6tu earlier (at t=0).
SPECIAL RELATIVITY:
In the difference to Galilean relativity, where boosting of space-time coordinates is based on the standard formula of velocity addition/subtraction, boost of coordinates in Special Relativity (SRT) is based on Lorentz transformation (LT). Because of this difference, SRT gives us predictions, that are completely inconsitent with the classical theory of relative motion.
Rest frame of A:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdY1DHq5/pip.jpg)
Rest frame of B:
(https://i.postimg.cc/GtsfTsNd/pip1.jpg)
According to the predictions of SRT
A) If in the rest frame of A, simultaneous emissions of light take place at t=0, when the distance to incoming object B is equal to 3su, then in the rest frame of B those emissions won't be simultaneous anymore - emission from the incoming object A is here taking place ~1,8tu earlier, than the emission from stationary object B, while the distance to A is diferent than 3su during both emissions (around 3,4su during in the moment of first emission at t=-1,8 and around 2,6su in the moment of second emission at t=0)
B) In the rest frame of B light emitted by the incoming object A will be observed by B around 1,8tu after it's own emission at t=0, while in the rest frame of object A, light emitted by the incoming object B will be observed by A exactly 3tu after it's own emission at t=0.
C) And finally, when both objects will meet with each other in one point of 1D space, they will completely disagree as for the order of observed events, durations of time intervals between those particular events and all the distances in space which were passed by both of them during those time intervals. In the rest frame of object A, initial pulses of light are emitted by A and B simultaneously at t=0 and are observed in the second frame 3tu later (at t=3), then another 3tu later (at t=6) both object meet each other in one point of 1D space. However in the rest frame of object B first pulse is being emitted by the incoming object A at t=-1,8, then the stationary object B emits it's own pulse at t=0 (around 1,8tu later), observes light emitted by A at around t=1,8 and meets with object A in one point of 1D space at around t=5,2
BRAKING DOWN THE SRT:
Since at one moment of time objects A and B are crossing one point in 1D space, there's nothing, what wouldn't allow them to compare their own outcomes of the process, which they took part in - they can for example see, what was the duration of time since the moment of their own light emissions at t=0 up until the moment, when both objects meet each other in 1D space - and then it will turn out, that while for object A this period of time is equal to 6tu, for B both objects meet each other in space only 5,2tu after it's own emission of light at t=0. In shortcut, time is flowing slower for B, than for A - and as most of you probably know, such relativistic effect, is known as "time dilation"
According to Wikipedia:
Time dilation caused by a relative velocity: Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to them will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in their frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light
All of this means, that time is flowing physically slower for B, than for A and when both objects will meet in space after the initial emission of light at t=0, object A will be older, than identical object B by 0,8tu, only because I started to describe this scenario with a frame, where B moves at v=0,5c in relation to stationary A - and somehow the apparent non-intrinsic velocity of object B in relation to object A causes an absolutely physical and definitive change in the rate of time flow, as it is experienced by object B - and so it becomes possible for someone, who lives in the inertial frame of A, to live 20% longer simply by "jumping" to the frame of B, which is moving at v=0,5c in relation to him.
I don't know how it's possible, but it is now more than 100 years, since the day, when in the beginning of XX century Einstein came out with the idea of time dilation - and there's still no one, who would be able to notice, that the concept of time dilation due to relative velocity has quite a lot of issues - and the most obvious one comes from the well known fact, that relative velocity depends completely on the DIRECTION of relative motion.
You don't have to be a genius of theoretical physics to know, that if 2 Frames of A and B are moving at equal velocities of v=0,5c in relation a stationary observer C, then frames A and B can be moving at velocity of 0,9c in relation to each other, if both are moving in opposite directions, but they can as well remain completely stationary towards each other, if both are moving in the same direction - so how the time can be flowing slower in the frame, which is moving at 0,9c, than in a frame that is stationary? It would mean, that we would be able to live a longer life by driving on the wrong side of a highway - since in relation to my car, other cars are moving much faster, if we are moving in opposite directions...
And how SRT deals with this problem? It simply states, that since A and B are in fact moving at v=0,5c in relation to a stationary observer C, in both frames of A and B, time is actually flowing at the same rate, which is slower than the rate of time flow in the rest frame of C. Very smart... Only now the rest frame of C is somehow much more stationary, than the rest frames of A and B, while the relative velocity of v=0,5c is somehow faster for A and B in relation to C, than for C in relation to A and B.
And things will get even worse, if we summarize all of this and try to make couple simple conclusions::
1. All frames that remain in relative motion towards each other have here their own specific rates of time flow, which depend on their velocity in relation to both: the constant velocity of c and a single frame, which was initally predefined as stationary towards all other frames.
2. Observers, which are moving in relation to eachother are now able to learn, what is their own velocity in relation to the constant velocity c, by sychronizing their clocks with one of the moving frames and comparing the rates of their own aging processes with other observers - the slower an observer is aging compared to other observers, the faster is his motion in relation to constant c, while observer with the fastest rate of aging process is the one, which from all moving frames, is the most stationary one.
If you don't see any problem here, you should probably go back to school and learn, what are the main postulates of relativity and how points 1. and 2. brutally violate 90% of them...
COUPLE ADVANTAGES OF GALILEAN MODEL OVER SRT:
In the difference to SRT, in the classical theory of relative motion, it is possible to switch freely between rest frames of the moving objects or to reverse the orientation in their emitter/sensor relation at any given moment of the timeline and it won't make no difference in the final result, except the direction of motion - what means, that in the Galilean model equivalence of inertia is in every case fully maintained, just as it is required in the main postulates of relativity. in Galilean relativity transformations of space-time coordinates are fully symmetrical, so it doesn't actually matter, which object is considered as the stationary one and which one is moving in relation to it. If object B is moving at v=0,5c in relation to stationary object A, then object A is moving at v=0,5c in relation to stationary object B, while all processes are observed in the same way in their own respective rest frames (except the direction of their relative motion).
Objects, which participate in a single physical process will always experience this process in the same way - no matter how fast or slow those objects will move in relation to eachother, they will always share the same universal timeline, where all events take place in a specific order, which remains valid in all frames, while simultaneity of events is absolute.
CONSTANT C IN THE GALILEAN MODEL OF RELATIVE MOTION
Before I will proceed with my explanations, I will compare once more the results obtained from both models:initial frame of object A
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrbFvp5x/diag1.jpg)
Rest frame of B as it is predicted in Einstein's Special Relativity:
(https://i.postimg.cc/GtsfTsNd/pip1.jpg)
rest frame of object B, as it is predicted in Galilean relativity
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1hRft5M/zxz99yz.jpg)
As you can see on the images above, resuts predicted by the Galilean model appear to be just as (or even more) scientifically probable, as results predicted by SRT There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the scenario, as it is presented on the last diagram. If you see anything, what makes it invalid, please let me know in a comment below.
By using the classical boost of coordinates we get a timeline of events, which is valid in all frames - impulse of light is being emitted here at t=0, when distance between both objects is equal to 3su (space units). Then at t=3 this impulse reaches the stationary sensor. And finally, 3tu later (at t=6) sensor and the source of light cross one point of 1D space.
But to make my model of relativity fully operational I will still need to deal with one tiny detail. Someone who is perceptive enough should be able to notice couple inconsistencies between the timeline of a rest frame and the timeline of a frame in relative motion. Properly defined equivalence of inertia should allow us, to reverse the orientation of the source-sensor relation at any given moment of a timeline, without causing any definitive changes in the observed timeline.
Problem is, that on the diagrams obtained from Galilean model, it can be seen that light, which is being emitted at t=0 by the incoming source located 3su away from the stationary sensor, is reaching that sensor exactly 3tu after emission (at t=3) - however at the same time light, which was emitted at t=0 by a stationary source appears to reach the incoming sensor at t=2 (so, 1tu earlier, than for light emitted by moving source and recieved by stationary sensor). Although in this particular scenario it doesn't make a crucial difference, it might become significant in more sophistiated scenarios
(https://i.postimg.cc/wjq9btDX/zoom.jpg)
We can easily guess, that such result can't be in any way valid. Since light propagates in vacuum at a constant velocity of 1su/1tu, which is independent from the velocity of it's source, pulse of light emitted 3su from a sensor, will always reach that sensor 3tu after it's emission - and this has to be true in any case of relative motion.
In shortcut, pulse of light will in this case reach the incoming frame at t=3 - even if in the rest frame of a source, it will appear to reach the incoming sensor at t=2. And now the question is: is it possible, to represent the actual timeline of events, as they are observed by the incoming sensor on the space-time diagram, which represents the rest frame of a stationary light source?
Of course - and It can be done quite easily. All what is needed, is the knowledge about a well known fact regarding the speed of light - I'm talking about the fact, that even in the theory there's no practical way to measure the velocity of a photon that moves only in one direction. It is a well established truth, that speed of light is measurable only in a two-way (or more) motion path en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
And now I will use this knowledge to make something, what is completely unthinkable in theoretical physics - I will boost the entire cone of light together with the world line of a moving observer. And since in Galilean relativity transformation of coordinates is symmetrical, I should should be able, to perform such operation on both space-time diagrams (boosted light cone is marked in green color):
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpWRLwXC/zz99yyzzz.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/02Y9F2YH/bandicam-2021-01-18-03-50-11-744.jpg)
I'm sure, that most of theoretical physicists will now tell, that I just broke the universal constancy of c, which has to be the same in all frames - while on those diagrams, light seems to propagate at different velocity for the frame of a moving object. However constant velocity of c in relation to a stationary observer. is here compltely maintained. What is not maintained, is the constant velocity of light in relation to a moving observer - but since speed of light can't be measured in one direction, boosting the liight cone doesn't in fact break the constancy of c, as long as it is maintained in a two-way motion.
So, let us see then, if constant velocity of c is in fact maintained for every two-directional path of motion for the boosted light cone:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHqc6SH2/mirror.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bv1tC2yV/pip4.jpg)
And now it should be clear, that in both frames constant velocity of c is in any case maintained for each 2-directional motion. Light emitted at t=0 by a source placed 3su away from a sensor, will reach that sensor at t=3 and get back to the source A at t=4 - no matter, which frame is stationary and which ne is moving in relation to it.
It seems, that the results predicted by my model of relativity not only make much more sense, than the results predicted by SRT, but are as well fully consistent with everything, what is know about the constant speed of light. If you know a better way of solving this simple scenario, please let my know in a comment.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 05/04/2021 21:58:35
- To make things more simple, I'm using here the universal units of space and time (su - space unit) and (tu - time unit), which are derived from the constant velocity of light in vacuum c equal to 1su/1tu - light propagates through 1 unit of space during 1 unit of time.
- All the diagrams presented above were made with an interactive tool from this site: ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html
- For some reason I'm unable to paste any kind of link, so I've placed different symbols instead of dots in the adress. Is there any way, to post a liink on this forum? Please help![/i]
Post by: Origin on 09/04/2021 14:37:42
Your second chart, the galilean chart, shows a subject moving at .5c and light pulses moving away from the subject at c as viewed from a rest frame. This is in error, according to galilean relativity the light rays should be moving at 1.5c.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2021 15:28:07
Yes.
However, in every single case where SR has been tested, it gives the right answer.
So the alternative is being wrong.
That's not a thing to brag about on a science page.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 02:42:32
Galilean relativity is an approximation of relativity that gives answers that are very close to correct at slow velocities. The higher the velocities the more incorrect the answers become. Galilean transforms clearly state that that the speed of light is not invariant, which is incorrect.
Your second chart, the galilean chart, shows a subject moving at .5c and light pulses moving away from the subject at c as viewed from a rest frame. This is in error, according to galilean relativity the light rays should be moving at 1.5c.
This is why I've made couple small modifications that allow the incorporation of constant c in the Galilean model of relativity. Since it is experimentally proven, that speed of light in vacuum is constant, then why can't we simply keep it constant in all frames (just as I did in my scenario)? All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition - and in result we'll end up with the Doppler's effect on light emitted by a moving source.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 03:01:00
"Is There Any Alternative to Special Relativity?"
Yes.
However, in every single case where SR has been tested, it gives the right answer.
So the alternative is being wrong.
That's not a thing to brag about on a science page.
Actually Special Relativity remains completely inconsistent with couple experimentally proven facts in the field of quantum physics - for example quantum entanglement, which points to absolute simultaneity or the idea of matter being a probability distribution, what contradicts the deterministic concept of time.
en♥wikipedia♥org/wiki/Problem_of_time
Post by: Origin on 10/04/2021 05:54:08
This is why I've made couple small modifications that allow the incorporation of constant c in the Galilean model of relativity.You didn't make small changes, you 'blew up' Galilean relativity.
Since it is experimentally proven, that speed of light in vacuum is constant, then why can't we simply keep it constant in all frames (just as I did in my scenario)?Because that is not logical and is inconsistent with Galilean relativity.
All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.Which would make no sense. That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 07:53:40
You didn't make small changes, you 'blew up' Galilean relativity.
Quote
Because that is not logical and is inconsistent with Galilean relativity.
Really? Then what for example about velocity of sound waves, which remains constant in each type of medium? It's well known, that If source of sound is moving within a stationary medium (e.g. air) it will create the Doppler's effect. I did the same with the waves of light with one difference - I've forced the medium for light propagation to be stationary in all inertial frames, so in the difference to sound, in the rest frame of a light source it won't be possible to observe the Doppler's effect.
Quote
Which would make no sense. That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
Inside a plane, which moves at mach 0,5 sound waves still propagate at mach 1. The main difference is here the fact, that mach has a constant value in air, which can be stationary only in one inertial frame, while c is constant in vacuum, which can be stationary simultaneously in all inertial frames - this is why Doppler's effect is not symmetrical for emission of sound in relative motion and is fully symmetrical for emission of light in relative motion.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 09:14:21
Again we have 2 objects: A (red sphere) and B (blue sphere) which are incoming towards eachother at relative velocity v=0,5c. In the rest frame of A both objects emit simultaneous pulses of light at t=0 when distance between both objects is equal to 4su (space units). Besides the space-time diagram, below you can see the actual animation of this scenario with a frame counter in the bottom - 1tu (time unit) is here equal to 10 frames of animation (so c = 1su/1tu = 1su/10frames)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTq22j5v/diaggg.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/02YZRjBX/dop1.gif)
In the rest frame of A, motion of light source B in relation to the light, which it emits, creates a Doppler's effect. Now, all what has to be done in order to maintain the constant c in the rest frame of B, is to create a copy of spatial coordinates grid and make it move together with object B (sadly I forgot to do it on the animation below and the grid is still moving there together with A). As the result we'll end up with a symmetrical reversal of the Doppler's effect:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZRjBxk7c/dop2.gif)
And finally, in order to represent both inertial frames on a single space-time diagram, we have to boost the light cone together with the world line of the moving object:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wxRcd2vj/diaggg2.gif)
In the end, in both frames light emitted by incoming source will reach stationary object at t=4, even if in the rest frame of a source it will appear, that light reaches the incoming object around t=2,7.
Below is a movie, in which I try to explain the basic principles of my simple theory, which incorporates constant c in the Galilean model of relative motion:
Post by: Origin on 10/04/2021 13:10:22
Really? Then what for example about velocity of sound waves, which remains constant in each type of medium? It's well known, that If source of sound is moving within a stationary medium (e.g. air) it will create the Doppler's effect. I did the same with the waves of light with one difference - I've forced the medium for light propagation to be stationary in all inertial frames, so in the difference to sound, in the rest frame of a light source it won't be possible to observe the Doppler's effect.
Inside a plane, which moves at mach 0,5 sound waves still propagate at mach 1. The main difference is here the fact, that mach has a constant value in air, which can be stationary only in one inertial frame, while c is constant in vacuum, which can be stationary simultaneously in all inertial frames - this is why Doppler's effect is not symmetrical for emission of sound in relative motion and is fully symmetrical for emission of light in relative motion.First of all I think your graphics look very good!
Since the speed of sound I measure depends on my relative motion to the source, it is definitely not an apples to apples comparison.
-------
I still maintain that using your modified Galilean relativity results in unrealistic situations. As I stated earlier:
That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
Another problem arises because a space ship traveling at .5c could fire a missile at .6c and an observer that was in a rest frame would see the missile moving at 1.1c.
How does your modified Galilean relativity address those concerns?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/04/2021 13:26:04
You obviously don't understand it. There are some very good textbooks around that explain special relativity. If you did learn to understand it you would be in a position to ask interesting and relevant questions about it.
If that is not what you are interested in doing then you are trolling. If that's the case then maybe you don't belong on a science forum.
This forum welcomes members that other forums would simply throw out. Please try to appreciate that.
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/04/2021 13:31:43
Really? Then what for example about velocity of sound waves, which remains constant in each type of medium? It's well known, that If source of sound is moving within a stationary medium (e.g. air) it will create the Doppler's effect. I did the same with the waves of light with one difference - I've forced the medium for light propagation to be stationary in all inertial frames, so in the difference to sound, in the rest frame of a light source it won't be possible to observe the Doppler's effect.Inside a plane, which moves at mach 0,5 sound waves still propagate at mach 1. The main difference is here the fact, that mach has a constant value in air, which can be stationary only in one inertial frame, while c is constant in vacuum, which can be stationary simultaneously in all inertial frames - this is why Doppler's effect is not symmetrical for emission of sound in relative motion and is fully symmetrical for emission of light in relative motion.First of all I think your graphics look very good!
Since the speed of sound I measure depends on my relative motion to the source, it is definitely not an apples to apples comparison.
-------
I still maintain that using your modified Galilean relativity results in unrealistic situations. As I stated earlier:
That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
Another problem arises because a space ship traveling at .5c could fire a missile at .6c and an observer that was in a rest frame would see the missile moving at 1.1c.
How does your modified Galilean relativity address those concerns?
@Origin Thanks for your valiant efforts at educating the ignorant. :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 16:09:31
All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.Which would make no sense. That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
There are couple significant consequences of treating c as an exceptional velocity, which remains constant in every inertial frame that probably require some further explanation. I think that the part, which I should focus on, is the apparent inconsistency between constant c and the standard formula of velocity addition...
I could possibly summarize the most important differences between the relative speed of mach (velocity of sound in lower atmosphere) and the absolute speed of warp (velocity of light in a vacuum) by stating that it is possible for a source of sound to outrun the sound waves emitted by it in it's own inertial frame, while in the case of light, waves will always propagate at the same constant speed of c in the inertial frame of their source, no matter how much it will try to catch up or outrun them. However somekind of a practical scenario should give you much better outlook on this subject.
Let's say, that we have 4 different frames:
A - a space station, which remains completely stationary (doom star)
B - a star destroyer, which is moving at v=0,5c in relation to A and is capable of launching tie fighters
C - a tie fighter launched from B at v=0,5c, equipped with a plasma turret loaded with a high energy projectile
D - a high energy projectile, ejected from C at v=0,5c
If I would now treat the speed of light (warp) in the same way as we treat the speed of sound (mach), this is what would be observed onboard the stationary doom star (A):
- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A with the speed of 0,5c launches a tie fighter C
- relative velocity of C is being added to relative velocity of B (0,5c+0,5c=1c)
- tie fighter C, which is now moving at velocity 1c in relation to stationary doom star A shoots a high energy projectile D at 0,5c
- relative velocity of C is once again added to relative velocity of D (1c+0,5c=1,5c)
- high energy projectile D is now moving at 1,5c in relation to stationary doom star A.
If the constant c is being treated as an exceptional velocity, which is always the same in all directions for all inertial frames and doesn't undergo standard velocity addition, since it makes a constant limit for any other velocity in relative motion, this is what will be observed in the stationary frame of doom star A:
- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A at half of the constant speed c, launches a tie fighter C at velocity 0,5c
- in the rest frame of B tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the limiting velocity c, but...
- in the stationary frame of doom star A, star destroyer B is already in half way to reach the limitng velocity c, while the tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the remaining speed - and half of 0,5c makes 0,25c
- in the frame of stationary doom star A, tie fighter C is now moving 0,25c faster than the star destroyer B which moves at 0,5c in relation to A - so the velocity of tie fighter C in relation to doom star A is equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c
- tie fighter C shoots a high energy projectile D with half of of the limiting velocity of constant c, but...
- in the frame of star destroyer B, tie fighter C is already moving at half of the limiting velocity c, while high energy projectile D is accelerated by half of the remaining speed (half of 0,5c makes 0,25c) - so in the rest frame of star destroyer B, projectile D is moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c, however...
- in the stationary frame of doom star A, tie fighter C was already moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,75c, while it was shooting a high energy projectile D at a velocity, which makes half of the speed that remains for C to reach the constant limit of c (0,25c) - and half of 0,25c makes 0,125c, so in the end...
- in relation to tie fighter C high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c
- in relation to star destroyer B high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c
- in relation to stationary doom star A high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,75c+0,125c=0,875c
If you are smart enough, you should be able to deduce already that in the case of second solution, you can accelerate the projectile D as much as you want, but there's absolutely no way for it to reach at any point the limiting velocity of constant c in any of those 4 frames...
And this is the right moment for you to ask: "But what if B, C or D would start to move in a direction, which is opposite to the projectile, which is already speeding at 0,875c? Shouldn't we add the relative velocities of 2 (or more) frames, if they are moving in opposing directions? If so, then by using the standard formula of velocity addition, it becomes possible for one source of light to move in relation to another light source with velocities that exceed the constant c - isn't that completely against our knowledge regarding the constant nature of c?"
Yes - that's a very good question (sadly as for now I'm the only one, who is asking it :)) ). But the answer is in this case probably much less intriguing... Sorry to dissapoint you, but physical reality won't break apart or collapse back into a singularity due to backward causality in reversed timeline. Even if it might appear, that order of events is actually reversed for frames that are moving at relative velocities, which exceed the constant c, time will still flow normally from the past and into future in every inertial frame - no matter, how fast or slow it will move in relation to any other frame... And although my model of constant c in relative motion gives an answer, that might be quite plain and boring, it's still better than the answer provided by SRT, which states that: "no one knows what might happen, since such scenario is absolutely impossible even in the theory"...
Anyway below is another of my movies, in which I've tried to explain the influence of ftl motion on the proper order of a timeline:
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 16:14:42
First of all I think your graphics look very good!Thank you very much! :D
I've tried to adress your objections in my previous post.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 16:29:43
OK, so relativity is a difficult concept to grasp. It requires effort. Why not put in the effort?
You obviously don't understand it. There are some very good textbooks around that explain special relativity. If you did learn to understand it you would be in a position to ask interesting and relevant questions about it.
If that is not what you are interested in doing then you are trolling. If that's the case then maybe you don't belong on a science forum.
This forum welcomes members that other forums would simply throw out. Please try to appreciate that.
I don't know any troll, who woud put so many efforts in his trolling... :) I dont consider Galilean or Special relativity to be very difficult to grasp - there are many other fields of physics, which are in fact much more sophisticated. I think as well, that in the last 100 years all important questions about SRT were already asked by other people.
All I do here, is to research an alternative way to describe the constant speed of light in relative motion and this category of forum is called "new theories", so I will really apprecciate any substantive opinion about my non-professional claims.
Post by: Origin on 10/04/2021 19:05:56
Ok, I admit that I should probably go back to Origin's comment - especially to this part:
Quote from: Origin on Today at 05:54:08
Quote from: CrazyScientist on Today at 02:42:32
All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.
Which would make no sense. That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
There are couple significant consequences of treating c as an exceptional velocity, which remains constant in every inertial frame that probably require some further explanation. I think that the part, which I should focus on, is the apparent inconsistency between constant c and the standard formula of velocity addition...
I could possibly summarize the most important differences between the relative speed of mach (velocity of sound in lower atmosphere) and the absolute speed of warp (velocity of light in a vacuum) by stating that it is possible for a source of sound to outrun the sound waves emitted by it in it's own inertial frame, while in the case of light, waves will always propagate at the same constant speed of c in the inertial frame of their source, no matter how much it will try to catch up or outrun them. However somekind of a practical scenario should give you much better outlook on this subject.
Let's say, that we have 4 different frames:
A - a space station, which remains completely stationary (doom star)
B - a star destroyer, which is moving at v=0,5c in relation to A and is capable of launching tie fighters
C - a tie fighter launched from B at v=0,5c, equipped with a plasma turret loaded with a high energy projectile
D - a high energy projectile, ejected from C at v=0,5c
If I would now treat the speed of light (warp) in the same way as we treat the speed of sound (mach), this is what would be observed onboard the stationary doom star (A):
- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A with the speed of 0,5c launches a tie fighter C
- relative velocity of C is being added to relative velocity of B (0,5c+0,5c=1c)
- tie fighter C, which is now moving at velocity 1c in relation to stationary doom star A shoots a high energy projectile D at 0,5c
- relative velocity of C is once again added to relative velocity of D (1c+0,5c=1,5c)
- high energy projectile D is now moving at 1,5c in relation to stationary doom star A.
If the constant c is being treated as an exceptional velocity, which is always the same in all directions for all inertial frames and doesn't undergo standard velocity addition, since it makes a constant limit for any other velocity in relative motion, this is what will be observed in the stationary frame of doom star A:
- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A at half of the constant speed c, launches a tie fighter C at velocity 0,5c
- in the rest frame of B tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the limiting velocity c, but...
- in the stationary frame of doom star A, star destroyer B is already in half way to reach the limitng velocity c, while the tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the remaining speed - and half of 0,5c makes 0,25c
- in the frame of stationary doom star A, tie fighter C is now moving 0,25c faster than the star destroyer B which moves at 0,5c in relation to A - so the velocity of tie fighter C in relation to doom star A is equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c
- tie fighter C shoots a high energy projectile D with half of of the limiting velocity of constant c, but...
- in the frame of star destroyer B, tie fighter C is already moving at half of the limiting velocity c, while high energy projectile D is accelerated by half of the remaining speed (half of 0,5c makes 0,25c) - so in the rest frame of star destroyer B, projectile D is moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c, however...
- in the stationary frame of doom star A, tie fighter C was already moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,75c, while it was shooting a high energy projectile D at a velocity, which makes half of the speed that remains for C to reach the constant limit of c (0,25c) - and half of 0,25c makes 0,125c, so in the end...
- in relation to tie fighter C high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c
- in relation to star destroyer B high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c
- in relation to stationary doom star A high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,75c+0,125c=0,875c
If you are smart enough, you should be able to deduce already that in the case of second solution, you can accelerate the projectile D as much as you want, but there's absolutely no way for it to reach at any point the limiting velocity of constant c in any of those 4 frames...
And this is the right moment for you to ask: "But what if B, C or D would start to move in a direction, which is opposite to the projectile, which is already speeding at 0,875c? Shouldn't we add the relative velocities of 2 (or more) frames, if they are moving in opposing directions? If so, then by using the standard formula of velocity addition, it becomes possible for one source of light to move in relation to another light source with velocities that exceed the constant c - isn't that completely against our knowledge regarding the constant nature of c?"
Yes - that's a very good question (sadly as for now I'm the only one, who is asking it ). But the answer is in this case probably much less intriguing... Sorry to dissapoint you, but physical reality won't break apart or collapse back into a singularity due to backward causality in reversed timeline. Even if it might appear, that order of events is actually reversed for frames that are moving at relative velocities, which exceed the constant c, time will still flow normally from the past and into future in every inertial frame - no matter, how fast or slow it will move in relation to any other frame... And although my model of constant c in relative motion gives an answer, that might be quite plain and boring, it's still better than the answer provided by SRT, which states that: "no one knows what might happen, since such scenario is absolutely impossible even in the theory"...
Anyway below is another of my movies, in which I've tried to explain the influence of ftl motion on the proper order of a timeline:
That seems somewhat confusing and convoluted to me.
I would just like to know if this following is an accurate account of what could occur in your modified Galilean relativity:
A space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
I think this just a yes or no question.
I am not trying to trick or trap you. To put my cards on the table, I think the answer to my question is yes and I also think that it results a a situation that is not physically possible, but this is your idea so I want to know what your answer is.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 19:37:19
That seems somewhat confusing and convoluted to me.
I would just like to know if this following is an accurate account of what could occur in your modified Galilean relativity:
A space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
I think this just a yes or no question.
I am not trying to trick or trap you. To put my cards on the table, I think the answer to my question is yes and I also think that it results a a situation that is not physically possible, but this is your idea so I want to know what your answer is.
My answer in such case is "NO". If a space ship, which is moving at 0,5c in relation to a stationary observer will emit a light pulse, then according to my modified model of Galilean relativity, after one second this pulse will appear to travel 1ls (i guess it's a light-second?) in the inertial frame of that moving ship, just as it will appear to travel 1ls from the point of emission in the inertial frame of a stationary observer - there can't be no other answer, since in my model constant velocity of c is maintained in all inertial frames and it is the source of light, that moves in relation to light emitted at constant c, not the other way around. However in the rest frame of a stationary observer there will be a displacement of the moving light source in relation to the point of emission, which will remain stationary from this perspective, so after 1 second distance between the pulse and the moving source will be smaller, than 1ls - what will cause the alteration of spatial distances due to Doppler's shift in space and time. I hope, that this answer will dispell all the misunderstandings, that come from my inability to use a proper scientific language and the fact, that I'm not a native english speaker... :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 20:22:12
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkrZH3S8/frame-12-delay-0-06s.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYxhdM0m/diaggg3.gif)
small red marbles/circles mark here the emitted pulse, as it is seen in the inertial frame of stationary observer (big red sphere), while small black marbles/circles mark the same pulse, as it is seen in the inertial frame of moving source (big blue sphere). It should now be clear, that in both inertial frames light pulse traveled in fact 1 unit of space after 1 unit of time since the moment of emission...
Post by: Origin on 10/04/2021 21:25:57
Let's see if we can clear this up.
You said:
If a space ship, which is moving at 0,5c in relation to a stationary observer will emit a light pulse, then according to my modified model of Galilean relativity, after one second this pulse will appear to travel 1ls (i guess it's a light-second?) in the inertial frame of that moving ship, just as it will appear to travel 1ls from the point of emission in the inertial frame of a stationary observerSo that means that 1 sec after the light pulse was emitted the ship will have traveled .5 ls and the light wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship for a total distance of 1.5 from the point of origin, correct?
Yes, "ls" is a light-second, I would suggest using units like seconds and light-seconds in your charts.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 21:32:27
Sorry but that answer confused me. You said the answer is no but then your explanation sounded like yes???
Let's see if we can clear this up.
You said:If a space ship, which is moving at 0,5c in relation to a stationary observer will emit a light pulse, then according to my modified model of Galilean relativity, after one second this pulse will appear to travel 1ls (i guess it's a light-second?) in the inertial frame of that moving ship, just as it will appear to travel 1ls from the point of emission in the inertial frame of a stationary observerSo that means that 1 sec after the light pulse was emitted the ship will have traveled .5 ls and the light wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship for a total distance of 1.5 from the point of origin, correct?
Yes, ls is a light-second, I would suggest using units like seconds and light-seconds in your charts.
From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.
Post by: Origin on 10/04/2021 22:09:06
From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.How would that be possible? How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/04/2021 23:36:08
It's like the call for relativity of simultaneity.From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.How would that be possible? How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/04/2021 23:43:45
Obviously theoretical physicists aren't bothered too much by the fact, that both models of relativity give us results, that are contradicting each other, since in the last 100 years no one didn't try to look for any other solution to the problem of constant c in relative motion - no one except me, but since I'm not a professional physicist, it probably doesn't count...You don't seem to read much about history of science and scientific progress. Even Wikipedia has some articles covering this. It's just no alternative solution has been successful in explaining various experimental results related to measurement of light speed from various movements of objects.
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 00:20:23
It's like the call for relativity of simultaneityI don't know what you mean.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 00:36:19
As I said earlier, constant c doesn't undergo the velocity addition - velocity of a moving source doesn't add to constant velocity c. In the inertial frame of stationary observer it's the source, which is moving in relation to light which it emits and not the other way around.From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.How would that be possible? How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?
It is possible, since light is here propagating in a non-physical medium (vacuum) that can be stationary in both frames simultaneusly. This wouldn't be possible for sound, which is propagating in a physical medium (e.g. air), that can be stationary in only one inertial frame - so in the difference to light, velocity of sound waves inside a moving plane is being added to the velocity of that plane.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 00:45:13
It's like the call for relativity of simultaneity.From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.How would that be possible? How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?
Actually in my model, simultaneity remains absolute, as the timeline is being shared between all inertial frames.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 01:02:27
Can you possibly provide some links? In fact I did look for something similar to my own model and I couldn't find anything. If you look at the movies, which I've posted in my previous posts, you'll see that I always try to provide some peer-revieved publications to backup most of my claims, that seem to be rather controversial...Obviously theoretical physicists aren't bothered too much by the fact, that both models of relativity give us results, that are contradicting each other, since in the last 100 years no one didn't try to look for any other solution to the problem of constant c in relative motion - no one except me, but since I'm not a professional physicist, it probably doesn't count...You don't seem to read much about history of science and scientific progress. Even Wikipedia has some articles covering this. It's just no alternative solution has been successful in explaining various experimental results related to measurement of light speed from various movements of objects.
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 04:04:50
You said:
From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.This is a problem because velocities are directly added in Galilean relativity, which means the speed of light as seen by the observer at rest should be 1.5c. In your modified Galilean relativity you implied that the speed of light is not added to the speed of the source. In fact you said the speed of light will be measured as c by all observers regardless of there inertial frames. This is a problem because this is in direct conflict with the Galilean transforms. So what you are saying is the transforms work for all speeds except light speed. That is not mathematically consistent.
But moving on, in your modified Galilean relativity, you say the at rest observer will see the light pulse moving at c so the wave front will have moved 1 ls in 1 sec so the wavefront will be .5 ls ahead of the ship.
The observers on the ship will see the speed of light as c, so after 1 sec the wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship.
These answers are inconflict. Why? Because you cannot arbitrarily change the Galilean transforms to handle certain velocities different from other velocities.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/04/2021 04:38:17
Actually in my model, simultaneity remains absolute, as the timeline is being shared between all inertial frames.If that's the case, then light has a constant speed when measured by the observer. But if there are more than one observers with non-zero relative velocities, which one would measure c?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/04/2021 04:45:09
Can you possibly provide some links? In fact I did look for something similar to my own model and I couldn't find anything. If you look at the movies, which I've posted in my previous posts, you'll see that I always try to provide some peer-revieved publications to backup most of my claims, that seem to be rather controversial...Your first claim was that nobody came out with alternative theory to relativity, not that nobody came out with your theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz_ballistic_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 05:33:07
We are having a communication problem here, CrazyScientist.
You said:From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.This is a problem because velocities are directly added in Galilean relativity, which means the speed of light as seen by the observer at rest should be 1.5c. In your modified Galilean relativity you implied that the speed of light is not added to the speed of the source. In fact you said the speed of light will be measured as c by all observers regardless of there inertial frames. This is a problem because this is in direct conflict with the Galilean transforms. So what you are saying is the transforms work for all speeds except light speed. That is not mathematically consistent.
But moving on, in your modified Galilean relativity, you say the at rest observer will see the light pulse moving at c so the wave front will have moved 1 ls in 1 sec so the wavefront will be .5 ls ahead of the ship.
The observers on the ship will see the speed of light as c, so after 1 sec the wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship.
These answers are inconflict. Why? Because you cannot arbitrarily change the Galilean transforms to handle certain velocities different from other velocities.
And why exactly can't I make any modifications of Galilean model, which will allow me to keep the c constant in all inertial frames? So what, if the constant speed of light is in my model treated in a different way and doesn't undergo velocity addition, just like other velocities? What doesn't allow me to make an exception for the exceptional speed of light and maintain it's constant value in all inertial frame? Who says, that any modifications of existing theories are forbidden, so I must stick in 100% to the existing rules, which obviously won't work in the case of constant c? Shouldn't the goal be to get a model, which is working and not one, which doesn't work, but is in 100% consistent with something, what was written down almost 400 years ago? I don't care, if due to my modifications, this model can't be called anymore as Galilean relativity - I can make up my own name for it (I like: "Unified Relativity" :)) ).
All of them :) Here for example we have 3 observers, where 2 of them have non-zero velocity - and constant c is maintained for all of them...Actually in my model, simultaneity remains absolute, as the timeline is being shared between all inertial frames.If that's the case, then light has a constant speed when measured by the observer. But if there are more than one observers with non-zero relative velocities, which one would measure c?
(https://i.ibb.co/whgMQkJ/bandicam-2018-11-17-21-43-41-511.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/pZ1m0Y3/bandicam-2018-11-13-12-10-48-460.jpg)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 05:42:58
Thanks! I didn't know about the Ritz ballistic theory. However there are almost no similarities beween those models and the one, which I present here - for example my model doesn't require the existence of aether and is based on completely different mechanics.Can you possibly provide some links? In fact I did look for something similar to my own model and I couldn't find anything. If you look at the movies, which I've posted in my previous posts, you'll see that I always try to provide some peer-revieved publications to backup most of my claims, that seem to be rather controversial...Your first claim was that nobody came out with alternative theory to relativity, not that nobody came out with your theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz_ballistic_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Although I have to agree, that I've made up a wrong name for this thread - of course, there are some alternatives to SRT... If it wouldn't be required to make names for new threads in form of a question, I would probably come out with a better one - it would probably include the term "Unified Relativity" :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 07:08:41
From the perspective of stationary observer, wavefront will travel the distance of 1 from the point of origin and will be 0,5ls ahead of the ship.How would that be possible? How can the light be .5 ls in front of ship and simultaneously be 1 ls ahead of the ship?
First of all, let's just look at Special Relativity, where a single distance in space can have different lenghts for 2 observers simultaneously (lenght contraction), single physical process can take place at different rates at the same time (time dilation), events can happen at different moments of a timeline and at different order or eventually become simultaneous in one frame (relative simultaneity) - and somehow no one doesn't ask, how can it be possible... Obviously no one will ever doubt in any of your claims, if your name is Albert Einstein :D
However in the difference to those couple examples, which I mentioned above, my claim has in fact an experimentally proven scientific explanation - due to the quantum nature of EM radiation, multiple different states can be superposed in a single wavefunction of light. According to quantum mechanics it is absolutely possible for a single photon, to exist simultaneously 0,5ls in front of a ship and 1ls ahead of that ship as long, as it's existence in those locations remains probable.
In my model logical consistency of constant c is being achieved by describing every emission of light individually for each observer/frame. In this particular case, pulse emitted by the moving space ship will be observed differently by that ship and by the stationary observer (what is allowed by the laws of QM). In SRT each emission of light is being described in relation to all observers simultaneously - and in order to make it work, each observer needs to have his own individual perception of space, just as his own individual timeline with his own individual rate of time flow and his own order of observed events.
Here's what I mean: on the diagram below it can be seen, that in the moment of light emission at t=0, which is marked by the lower arrow, distance between both objects is equal to 3su, however the same impuls appears to reach the incoming object at t=2
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLLr1q1h/pipa.jpg)
SRT treats such result as absolute and explains it by deforming the grid of space-time coordinates in such way, that such situation becomes possible due to space and time being differerent for both inertial frames
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLLr1q1h/pipa.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nhXX9nXY/pipAA.jpg)
My model deals with such result by stating, that since light cant be measured in one direction, description of constant c in relation to a moving receiver doesn't make sense, as those results can't be in any way practically measured - the only way, to get valid results, is to describe the emitted light indivdually for the inertial frame of a source and the inertial frame of a receiver:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLLr1q1h/pipa.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnRXxRDW/pipuu.jpg)
And before someone will ask, how can it be, that in my model emitted photons appear to have 2 different locations in space in the same moment of time, here's the answer: both locations can be superposed in the propability distribution of a light wave. Everything what actually matters in such case, is the act of measurement, which collapses the undetermined probability distribution into a single fully determined and definitive state - and since stationary observer is unable to make a measurement in a frame, which moves in relation to him, the only result, which can be absolute, is the one that is made by an observer in his own inertial frame. If we apply all of this to the scenario, which is presented on the diagrams above, it will become clear, that in the end light pulse emitted 3su away from a receiver will be measured by that receiver in it's own inertial frame 3tu after the emission - and this will be the only absolute result in this particular scenario.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/04/2021 09:12:28
All of them Here for example we have 3 observers, where 2 of them have non-zero velocity - and constant c is maintained for all of them...So your theory is the same as SRT, which is no longer considered as a new theory.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 09:36:45
My theory is "the same" as SRT in the sense that both models are capable to maintain the constant c in relative motion - and this is where the similarities end. You might say as well that ships are the same as planes - as both are capable to transport stuff between continents...All of them Here for example we have 3 observers, where 2 of them have non-zero velocity - and constant c is maintained for all of them...So your theory is the same as SRT, which is no longer considered as a new theory.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/04/2021 12:17:22
My theory is "the same" as SRT in the sense that both models are capable to maintain the constant c in relative motion - and this is where the similarities end. You might say as well that ships are the same as planes - as both are capable to transport stuff between continents...Do your theory predicts the same results as SRT? Is there any difference?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 13:26:28
Don't you know how to read the space-time diagrams? Or maybe you just didn't see no reason to read any of my posts in this thread in which the text has more than 30 characters? Because now I'm not sure, how should I approach your question - should I make a comparisment of diagrams (again) or should I write it down (again)...My theory is "the same" as SRT in the sense that both models are capable to maintain the constant c in relative motion - and this is where the similarities end. You might say as well that ships are the same as planes - as both are capable to transport stuff between continents...Do your theory predicts the same results as SRT? Is there any difference?
So maybe as for now I will answer with this: YES, there are some major differences between both models. For example SRT uses Lorentz transformation of coordinates and Einstein's formula of velocity addition, while my model uses Galilean transformation of coordinates and standard formula of velocity addition - because of this, both models will always predict completely different results... But to give you a better outlook on the differences, I would have to make an essay...
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2021 13:30:48
Or maybe you just didn't see no reason to read any of my posts in this threadOn the contrary, I did see no reason to read any of your posts.
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 14:05:40
First of all, let's just look at Special Relativity, where a single distance in space can have different lenghts for 2 observers simultaneously (lenght contraction), single physical process can take place at different rates at the same time (time dilation), events can happen at different moments of a timeline and at different order or eventually become simultaneous in one frame (relative simultaneity) - and somehow no one doesn't ask, how can it be possible... Obviously no one will ever doubt in any of your claims, if your name is Albert EinsteinIt is possible because the theory is mathematically consistent.
Your is not. For example in your model the following would be true:
.90c + .09c = .99c
.90c + .10c = 1.0c
.90c + .11c = 1.0c
That is not mathematically consistent. Additionally, the first 2 equations do not match observations in the real world.
You have never adequately addressed my scenario. You seem to be avoiding the scenario, so maybe this will help me to understand your model better. Which of the following is true in your model,
1. The moving space ship sends out a light pulse that they measure as a speed of c. After 1 second the light has moved 1 light-second.
2. The moving space ship sends out a light pulse that they measure as a speed of c. After 1 second the light has moved .5 light-seconds.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 14:37:34
Of course - there's no such obligation. I don't force you or anyone else to read any of my posts... In my general understanding, people read what other people have to say, when they have the will to do so... However with with this single comment you've just proved, that for some reason you actually DO read my posts - even if you see no reason in doing so... Am I the only one, who is able to notice an obvious inconsitency between your words and your actions...? :)Or maybe you just didn't see no reason to read any of my posts in this threadOn the contrary, I did see no reason to read any of your posts.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2021 15:02:58
Am I the only one, who is able to notice an obvious inconsitency between your words and your actions...?From the man who didn't spot that he had posted a double negative, even after it was pointed out.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 15:12:26
For example in your model the following would be true:
.90c + .09c = .99c
.90c + .10c = 1.0c
.90c + .11c = 1.0c
That is not mathematically consistent. Additionally, the first 2 equations do not match observations in the real world
Sorry, but can you provide somekind of practical explanation? What exactly is being represented by those equations? I'm not able to follow your thoughts here...
Quote
You have never adequately addressed my scenario. You seem to be avoiding the scenario, so maybe this will help me to understand your model better. Which of the following is true in your model,
1. The moving space ship the sends out a light pulse that they measure as a speed of c. After 1 second the light has moved 1 light-second.
2. The moving space ship the sends out a light pulse that they measure as a speed of c. After 1 second the light has moved .5 light-seconds.
If by "they" you've ment that moving space ship, then of course my answer is: 1.
I'm still not sure, if I unserstand you correctly, so I'll try to write down this answer with my own words:
1. Moving space ship emits a light pulse and measures that it (light pulse) moves at the constant speed of c. After 1 second that pulse has moved 1 light-second away from that ship - is this the answer, you've asked me for?
If yes, then why should I even consider to choose option 2, where light emited by that space ship moves 5 light-seconds in 1 second? Why this light pulse is moving there with the speed of 5c? I don't get it - option 2 is without any doubts completely wrong... I really can't follow your thoughts...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 15:43:06
Am I the only one, who is able to notice an obvious inconsitency between your words and your actions...?From the man who didn't spot that he had posted a double negative, even after it was pointed out.
Sorry for not being a native english speaker - it's really not my fault. I'm trying as hard as I can, to become 100% fluent, but my grammar and vocabulary can be sometimes pretty awful. I'm sure, that you would be able to learn my native language in couple months and without any efforts, but sadly I'm not as smart as you are.... No ale nie od dzisiaj przecież wiadomo, że ludzie o prawdziwie słowiańskich korzeniach mają wrodzoną odporność na wiedzę i są wyjątkowo trudni do <censored>.. :)
[Mod edit: No vulgarities please]
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 16:09:25
Sorry, but can you provide somekind of practical explanation? What exactly is being represented by those equations? I'm not able to follow your thoughts here...I
Sorry for any confusion I caused. The equations I wrote were to show that with your modified Galilean relativity in most cases velocities are handled by a straight addition, but in other cases (velocities when added would exceed c) they aren't . In other words:
This is allowed:
100 km/hr + 100 km/hr = 200 km/hr
Or
.9c + .09c = .99c
But this is not allowed:
.9c + .2c = 1.1c
In your idea the addition would work like this:
.9c + .2c = 1.0c
This makes no sense, this is not how addition works.
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 16:22:05
I'm trying as hard as I can, to become 100% fluent, but my grammar and vocabulary can be sometimes pretty awful.I think your English is quite good, actually.
Getting back to the scenario.
You said:
Moving space ship emits a light pulse and measures that it (light pulse) moves at the constant speed of c. After 1 second that pulse has moved 1 light-second away from that shipThat means 1 second after the light pulse was emitted the light will have traveled 1.5 light-seconds. If the light pulse is 1 light-second ahead of the ship AND the ship has traveled .5 light-seconds then the distance the light traveled from the point of origin is 1.5 light-seconds!! There can be no other correct answer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/04/2021 16:35:46
- because of this, both models will always predict completely different results...Ok. So your model is not an accurate representation of physical reality. That's fine if you were trying to write fiction. Otherwise it wouldn't be acceptable.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 18:08:28
I'm trying as hard as I can, to become 100% fluent, but my grammar and vocabulary can be sometimes pretty awful.I think your English is quite good, actually.
Thanks! :D
Quote
Getting back to the scenario.
You said:Moving space ship emits a light pulse and measures that it (light pulse) moves at the constant speed of c. After 1 second that pulse has moved 1 light-second away from that shipThat means 1 second after the light pulse was emitted the light will have traveled 1.5 light-seconds. If the light pulse is 1 light-second ahead of the ship AND the ship has traveled .5 light-seconds then the distance the light traveled from the point of origin is 1.5 light-seconds!! There can be no other correct answer.
Ok, I get it now - I've missed the dot (.) In the 2nd option - it was .5ls and not 5ls - now it makes more sense to me
Now back to the point - you seem to miss the point regarding the exception of constant c. My model uses 2 kinds of velocities:
- velocity of constant c
- velocities defined in relation to constant c (relative velocities).
Constant c is characteristic only for light. It is constant in all inertal frames and it's value doesn't undergo addition or subtraction from any other velocity.
Relative velocities are defined in relation to constant c and undergo subtraction and addition with other relative velocities, but NOT with constant velocity c.
Relative velocity of a moving frame CAN reach or even exceed the constant c . Source of light can be moving at a relative velocity, which is higher than constant c, but it's velicity still doesn't add to the velocity of light which it emits and in it's inerial frame light still propagates at constant c.
Now let's go back to your scenario with the star ship, which is moving at a relative velocity of 0.5c
Quote
If the light pulse is 1 light-second ahead of the ship AND the ship has traveled .5 light-seconds then the distance the light traveled from the point of origin is 1.5 light-seconds!! There can be no other correct answer.
There seems to be a misunderstanding - you forgot to specify the frame of observation. You need to be more specific - talk to me just like you would talk to someone with half of the normal iq level :)
Here's the correct answer:
- in the inertial frame of star ship light propagates at constant c and 1 second after emission, wavefront is located 1ls ahead of that ship
- in the inertial frame of a stationary observer light propagates at constant c, while the star ship moves with half of constant c (0.5c) - so 1 second after moving star ship emitted a pulse of light, wavefront of that light pulse passed the distance of 1ls, while the star ship passed half of that distance - in result, in the inertial frame of a stationary observer wavefront of the light pulse is only 0,5ls ahead of the moving star ship.
Just please don't ask me now, how it is possible - I've explained this couple times already. Shortly - it IS theoretically and practically possible.
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 20:34:14
Constant c is characteristic only for light. It is constant in all inertal frames
and it's value [c] doesn't undergo addition or subtraction from any other velocity.You seriously don't see the logical contradiction here?
At a point in space, let's call it point A, a space ship traveling at .5c sends out a light pulse.
According to your first statement above, from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c. That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship. And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second. So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second. This is the only logic conclusion.
According to your second statement above the speed of light and the speed of the ship are not added, so the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship after 1 second.
So that is big logical problem!
If the first statement is true then the second statement is false.
If the second statement is true then the first statement is false.
I am afraid that you are refusing to see the problems so you won't have admit your idea is flawed.
Post by: Halc on 11/04/2021 21:03:37
This is why I've made couple small modifications that allow the incorporation of constant c in the Galilean model of relativity. Since it is experimentally proven, that speed of light in vacuum is constant, then why can't we simply keep it constant in all frames (just as I did in my scenario)?This is exactly what Einstein did, incorporating the premise of not even the frame independent constant speed of light, but rather the frame independent measurement of light speed. His theory is entirely empirical, not metaphysical, since it posits only empirical premises, not any metaphysical ones.
These are the only two assumptions: Galilean relativity which simply says that the laws of physics do not vary from one inertial frame to another, and the frame independent constant measurement of light speed.
All of STR can directly be derived from these premises, which means that if your theory maintains constancy of light speed and yet predicts different measurements than does STR, then your predictions are not derived, but are incorrect guesses. They cannot be correct because no further guessing is needed to complete the theory.
Similarly, GTR is predicated on the single additional premise of the equivalence principle.
So if you want to make sense in your posts, describe things in an empirical manner, not in metaphysical terms. If two objects are moving together at a relative speed of 0.5c, then how are these speeds measured? I ask because it really matters, and different methods yield different results. There are different way to do it, but keep in mind that measurements can only be performed locally, so you can't talk about 'seeing' where the light pulse is in one second because if you emitted it, then you're not where it is after a second, so you cannot measure it. Somebody else can, but he has no direct way of knowing when it was emitted without a description of how he determined that. So say how the measurements are done instead of just asserting metaphysical relationships. Einstein went straight into such measurement and demonstrated relativity of simultaneity without ever running actual numbers, deriving any formulas, or consulting a clock. The only tool used was a tape measure. Any yet you seem to deny relativity of simultaneity in direct trivial contradiction with your assertion that light speed is not frame dependent.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 21:31:19
This is why I've made couple small modifications that allow the incorporation of constant c in the Galilean model of relativity. Since it is experimentally proven, that speed of light in vacuum is constant, then why can't we simply keep it constant in all frames (just as I did in my scenario)?This is exactly what Einstein did, incorporating the premise of not even the frame independent constant speed of light, but rather the frame independent measurement of light speed. His theory is entirely empirical, not metaphysical, since it posits only empirical premises, not any metaphysical ones.
These are the only two assumptions: Galilean relativity which simply says that the laws of physics do not vary from one inertial frame to another, and the frame independent constant measurement of light speed.
All of STR can directly be derived from these premises, which means that if your theory maintains constancy of light speed and yet predicts different measurements than does STR, then your predictions are not derived, but are incorrect guesses. They cannot be correct because no further guessing is needed to complete the theory.
Similarly, GTR is predicated on the single additional premise of the equivalence principle.
So if you want to make sense in your posts, describe things in an empirical manner, not in metaphysical terms. If two objects are moving together at a relative speed of 0.5c, then how are these speeds measured? I ask because it really matters, and different methods yield different results. There are different way to do it, but keep in mind that measurements can only be performed locally, so you can't talk about 'seeing' where the light pulse is in one second because if you emitted it, then you're not where it is after a second, so you cannot measure it. Somebody else can, but he has no direct way of knowing when it was emitted without a description of how he determined that. So say how the measurements are done instead of just asserting metaphysical relationships. Einstein went straight into such measurement and demonstrated relativity of simultaneity without ever running actual numbers, deriving any formulas, or consulting a clock. The only tool used was a tape measure. Any yet you seem to deny relativity of simultaneity in direct trivial contradiction with your assertion that light speed is not frame dependent.
"(...) which means that if your theory maintains constancy of light speed and yet predicts different measurements than does STR, then your predictions are not derived, but are incorrect guesses"
Sorry, but in my humble and non-scientific opinion, someone can't have a more un-sientific approach to a new theory.
And what if my theory can properly explain quatum entanglement? Because SRT can't handle it too wel
Post by: Halc on 11/04/2021 21:46:09
Sorry, but in my humble and non-scientific opinion, someone can't have a more un-sientific approach to a new theory.What can be more scientific than a single premise and a mathematical derivation of all the (unintuitive even) measurements that must be result if the premise is true? There's not a single assertion in the theory.
Quote
And what if my theory can properly explain quatum entanglement? Because SRT can't handle it too welIt isn't a theory of quantum mechanics, so it is not in conflict with entanglement any more than it is in conflict with the theory of evolution.
But I think you are referring to this statement:
quantum entanglement, which points to absolute simultaneityQuantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.
Quote
or the idea of matter being a probability distribution, what contradicts the deterministic concept of time.Matter being a probability distribution? What theory says that? SR doesn't mention such thing, concluding or denying them. It makes no conclusion of determinism or the lack of it. These are all metaphysical (philosophical, not scientific) concepts and SR only make empirical predictions.
Your posts seem to lack empirical predictions, which is why I urged you to actually describe how the various relationships you assert are expected to be measured.
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 21:55:27
Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:That is basically meaningless. Are you going to answer my post?
On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion
0 =>-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0
Where
0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial frame
v - relative velocity of any other frame
c - constant velocity of light in vacuum
Beat this...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 22:06:28
Matter being a probability distribution? What theory says that?
About that - google: "wave function matter"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module%202/matter_waves.htm
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 22:48:58
Quote
Quantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.
About that... google: "quantum entanglement and simultaneity":
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258
"Hi Sam,
Operations on an entangled particle do in fact affect the partner particle instantaneously, if you choose to describe things as if events at one particle affect the other one. (As we describe above, that doesn't really capture the strange connection between the events at the entangled particles.) Also as explained above, this does not violate the postulates of relativity, since randomness prevents any information being sent.
Actually, it was proven recently that if entangled partners interacted at any finite speed, then you could send faster-than-light signals. Since this wouldn't be consistent with special relativity, it is a proof that the interaction must be instantaneous ("infinite speed").
Hope that helps,
David Schmid"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/012001/pdf
Basic Theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Possibility of
Passing on Information Faster than the Speed of Light
Abstract. Quantum entanglement is the core of quantum physics, which is a part of theoretical
physics. This theory is once assumed to be the hope of faster-than-light communication. If the
technique is achievable, it would be a great breakthrough in the field of physics. I went through
the development history of quantum entanglement and conclude it, which is the main stuff I
write about in this article, as it involves many differing and sometimes contradictory opinion of
physicists. The main part of my research depends on articles about quantum mechanics. I read
them first and extracted the relevant contents to form a complete timeline of development.
During my exploration, a conclusion of faster-than-light communication is impossible is arose.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/895973/files/0510090.pdf
"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum
Liar Paradox
W.M. Stuckey1
, Michael Silberstein2,3 and Michael Cifone3
Abstract
The Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics
is introduced. RBW is shown to provide a novel statistical interpretation of the
wavefunction that deflates the measurement problem, as well as a geometric account of
quantum entanglement and non-locality that is free of conflict with special relativity and
free of interpretative mystery. We conclude with RBW’s acausal and adynamical
resolution of the so-called “quantum liar paradox,†an experimental set-up alleged to be
problematic for a spacetime conception of reality. "
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02494313/document
Absolute Space-Time and Measurement
"Abstract
The concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definite
meaning in quantum mechanics. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing an absolute notion of space-time. We also propose to illustrate that when no measurement is conducted on a quantum system its wave function lives as a wave in the absolute space-time but, when a measurement is to be conducted, we must switch to an ordinary observable frame of reference where the quantum system lives as a particle"
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/04/passage-of-time-relativity-physics/609841/
What Einstein May Have Gotten Wrong
The Swiss physicist Nicolas Gisin is using an old form of math to rethink the very basics of what we know about time.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/more-evidence-support-quantum-theory-s-spooky-action-distance
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/einstein-relativity-and-absolute-simultaneity/
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332005000200018
http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yskim/yspapers/aipproc2006.pdf
jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jafpos/26/0/26_1/
https://cs.paperswithcode.com/paper/entangled-simultaneity-versus-classical
I'm still looking for more...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 22:59:04
https://inspirehep.net/files/400680d382d08f46fc0026b7aada25a6
The Doppler Efect and the Anisotropy of the Speed of Light
Michał Drągowski1 · Marta Włodarczyk1
Received: 3 October 2019 / Accepted: 25 February 2020 / Published online: 4 April 2020
© The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
Fundamental incompatibility arises at the interface of quantum mechanics and the
special theory of relativity with Einstein synchronization, in which simultaneity is
not absolute. It has, however, been shown that a relativistic theory preserving absolute simultaneity allows to formulate Lorentz-covariant quantum theory, at a price
of introducing a preferred frame of reference manifesting itself in a directional anisotropy of the speed of light. We show that a supposed method of distinguishing
between these two theories based on the Doppler efect is insensitive to this anisotropy. Both theories are indistinguishable if only kinematic efects for light or subluminal signals are considered.
It was published on 10.2020 by scientists from my country (Poland) - they probably saw some of my movies :D
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 23:08:08
Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:That is basically meaningless.
On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion
0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0
Where
0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial frame
v1,v2 - relative velocities of all frames, excepth the frame of a photon
c - constant velocity of light in vacuum
Beat this...
not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:
0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0
Post by: Kryptid on 11/04/2021 23:22:51
Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:That is basically meaningless.
On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion
0 =<-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0
Where
0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial frame
v - relative velocity of any other frame
c - constant velocity of light in vacuum
Beat this...
not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:
0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0
Okay, so what does <---------> mean in mathematics?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 23:34:02
Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:That is basically meaningless.
On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion
0 =<-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0
Where
0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial frame
v - relative velocity of any other frame
c - constant velocity of light in vacuum
Beat this...
not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:
0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0
Okay, so what does <---------> mean in mathematics?
Sorry - it supposed to mean "all values in range", but I'm not sure, what is the proper mathmatical form . Let me try once more...
0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0
Better? Help please!
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 23:57:10
0 =<{→}>= v1 =<{→}> c <{←}>= v2 =<{←}>= 0
is this the right form?
Post by: Origin on 12/04/2021 00:02:19
not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:
0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0
Sorry - it supposed to mean "all values in range", but I'm not sure, what is the proper mathmatical form . Let me try once more...Here is a suggestion, don't insult your readers and then ask them for help.
0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0
Better? Help please!
Are you going to respond to post #47?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 00:23:16
Constant c is characteristic only for light. It is constant in all inertal framesand it's value [c] doesn't undergo addition or subtraction from any other velocity.You seriously don't see the logical contradiction here?
At a point in space, let's call it point A, a space ship traveling at .5c sends out a light pulse.
According to your first statement above, from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c. That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship. And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second. So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second. This is the only logic conclusion.
According to your second statement above the speed of light and the speed of the ship are not added, so the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship after 1 second.
So that is big logical problem!
If the first statement is true then the second statement is false.
If the second statement is true then the first statement is false.
I am afraid that you are refusing to see the problems so you won't have admit your idea is flawed.
Quote
According to your first statement above, from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c. That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship. And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second. So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second. This is the only logic conclusion.
"from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c. That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship" - yes
"And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second" - yes, BUT ONLY IN THE INERTIAL FRAME OF STATIONARY OBSERVER, where point of origin of that light pulse remains stationary in relation to the moving star ship
"So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second. This is the only logic conclusion" - not when you include the part, which I've underlined above
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 00:44:22
in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame
In the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.
In the moment of light emission A1 and A2 occupy the same spatial location in both inertial frames.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/04/2021 00:49:19
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 00:55:44
All values in the range of... what?in the range from 0 (velocity of stationary frame) to relative velocities v1 and v2 and from relative velocities v1 and v2 to the constant velocity c.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/04/2021 01:09:36
in the range from 0 (velocity of stationary frame) to relative velocities v1 and v2 and from relative velocities v1 and v2 to the constant velocity c.
Well, c doesn't equal zero, so it's wrong.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 01:25:00
in the range from 0 (velocity of stationary frame) to relative velocities v1 and v2 and from relative velocities v1 and v2 to the constant velocity c.
Well, c doesn't equal zero, so it's wrong.
Huh? Constant velocity c can't equal 0, Value of c is measurable - light propagates at around 299792458 metres per second. So, it's completely valid..
Relative velocities v1 and v2 can gain any value in the range from 0 to c. Perfect. You couldn't get any better foundation for a model, that explain speed of light in relative motion
Post by: Origin on 12/04/2021 02:17:16
So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second. This is the only logic conclusion" - not when you include the part, which I've underlined aboveYou are correct, from the frame of the ship the light would have traveled 1 light-second in front of the ship and point A has moved .5 light-seconds behind the ship. What I said was incorrect.
This still leaves the problem of the stationary observer seeing the light wavefront only being .5 light seconds ahead of the ship and space ship observer seeing the wavefront at 1 light-second ahead of the ship.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/04/2021 04:23:52
Constant velocity c can't equal 0
Of course it doesn't. That's exactly what I was saying.
So, it's completely valid.
Which is why your equation is wrong. Your equation says that zero equals the speed of light.
Post by: Halc on 12/04/2021 04:43:42
I didn't see anything saying that matter was a probability distribution.Matter being a probability distribution? What theory says that?About that - google: "wave function matter"...
At best, one can say that the wave function of a system can be used to determine the probability distribution of the state of that system that will be measured. With that I would agree. It doesn't mean that a probability distribution is what matter is. There are those that posit that matter actually is a wave function, but a wave function is again not a probability distribution.
Oh I have no doubt that you'll get lots of hits on a search like that, many of which assert the 'instantaneous' cause/effect, but QM does not. Most of the sites/posts are not in formats where peers can comment on them pointing out the errors. These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well.QuoteQuantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.About that... google: "quantum entanglement and simultaneity":
Quote
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258Here the statement is conditional. "If you choose ...". Yes, one can choose an interpretation where 'instantly' has meaning and there is faster than light causality, which necessitates effect before cause in some situations (like delayed choice experiments). DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation is one of these choices, but since it makes zero empirical predictions, it is metaphysics, not science.
"Operations on an entangled particle do in fact affect the partner particle instantaneously, if you choose to describe things as if events at one particle affect the other one.
Quote
Actually, it was proven recently that if entangled partners interacted at any finite speed, then you could send faster-than-light signals. Since this wouldn't be consistent with special relativity, it is a proof that the interaction must be instantaneous ("infinite speed").Non-sequitur. Any local interpretation posits no interaction at all between the entangled pair, so there is no need for any signal, FTL or otherwise. Some interpretations deny wave function collapse. None of the interpretations are science. That's why they're interpretations instead of theories. QM is a theory and makes concrete empirical predictions, none of which involves FTL interactions.
Quote
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/012001/pdfAgain, "possibility". QM does not disallow this possibility, and I never said otherwise.
Basic Theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Possibility of
Passing on Information Faster than the Speed of Light
This article seems to have been written by a complete amateur or high-school student. The web is full of such articles. Interesting that you need to reach to this level to find support.
Quote
"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the QuantumThis talks about some interpretation (philosophy), not QM (science). My statement was that QM does not conclude or posit FTL interaction between entangled particles, and you're citing nothing but sites about something other than QM, or articles written by non-physicists.
Liar Paradox
W.M. Stuckey1
, Michael Silberstein2,3 and Michael Cifone3
Abstract
The Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics
is introduced.
Quote
Absolute Space-Time and MeasurementThis seem to suggest a local method to determine an absolute frame, which would rock the world if it worked. I can probably find 100 sites/posts making similar claims.
"Abstract
The concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definite
meaning in quantum mechanics. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing an absolute notion of space-time. We also propose to illustrate that when no measurement is conducted on a quantum system its wave function lives as a wave in the absolute space-time but, when a measurement is to be conducted, we must switch to an ordinary observable frame of reference where the quantum system lives as a particle"
Your choices of sources of information (and your total misrepresentations of every theory in your error laden OP) seem to suggest you're just a science denier instead of somebody genuinely trying to work out an alternative theory for something. I see little point in continuing the discussion then. I'm here to help, not to win a contest of who can find the most links to bad science.
Side note: Special relativity does not conclude or posit the lack of a preferred (absolute) frame. That would be a metaphysical assertion, and SR is an empirical theory.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/04/2021 23:01:23
This still leaves the problem of the stationary observer seeing the light wavefront only being .5 light seconds ahead of the ship and space ship observer seeing the wavefront at 1 light-second ahead of the ship.
There's absolutely no problem with that. Read once again, what is written below:
in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame
In the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.
In the moment of light emission A1 and A2 occupy the same spatial location in both inertial frames.
In the frame of stationary observer, there's a displacement between the moving source of light and the point of emission. That's the reason why Doppler's effect is being observed - and since it is a symmetrical effect of relative motion, it can be observed in both frames simultaneously. The "issue" here, is the fact, that in the special case of light, it CAN'T be observed in the frame of light source (space ship).
Inertial frame of spaceship (light source):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Dopplereffectstationary.gif)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Dopplereffectstationary.gif)
Inertial frame of a stationay observer (space ship in motion):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Dopplereffectsourcemovingrightatmach0.7.gif)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Dopplereffectsourcemovingrightatmach0.7.gif)
I really don't know, how I can explain it to you better... YES - it is physically possible and YES - it is being actually observed. And it really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 00:31:12
I didn't see anything saying that matter was a probability distribution.
At best, one can say that the wave function of a system can be used to determine the probability distribution of the state of that system that will be measured. With that I would agree. It doesn't mean that a probability distribution is what matter is. There are those that posit that matter actually is a wave function, but a wave function is again not a probability distribution.
I admit, that I might oversimply things. I'm nothing more but a mere (and humble) enthusiast of physics, so my language isn't often specific enough - here's, what I wanted to say by stating that "matter is a probabilty distribution":
https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/particletimeav.htm
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1501107/files/978-94-007-5461-4_BookBackMatter.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05313.pdf
Now you should be able to get the general "jist" of my statement.
And my general point is here the fact, that hyperdeterministic SRT doesn't go too well with such probabilistic representation of physical reality - remember the famous: "God doesn't play at dice"?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02587
"On the Incompatibility of Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
As for this segment:
I didn't see anything saying that matter was a probability distribution.Matter being a probability distribution? What theory says that?About that - google: "wave function matter"...
At best, one can say that the wave function of a system can be used to determine the probability distribution of the state of that system that will be measured. With that I would agree. It doesn't mean that a probability distribution is what matter is. There are those that posit that matter actually is a wave function, but a wave function is again not a probability distribution.Oh I have no doubt that you'll get lots of hits on a search like that, many of which assert the 'instantaneous' cause/effect, but QM does not. Most of the sites/posts are not in formats where peers can comment on them pointing out the errors. These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well.QuoteQuantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.About that... google: "quantum entanglement and simultaneity":Quotehttps://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258Here the statement is conditional. "If you choose ...". Yes, one can choose an interpretation where 'instantly' has meaning and there is faster than light causality, which necessitates effect before cause in some situations (like delayed choice experiments). DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation is one of these choices, but since it makes zero empirical predictions, it is metaphysics, not science.
"Operations on an entangled particle do in fact affect the partner particle instantaneously, if you choose to describe things as if events at one particle affect the other one.QuoteActually, it was proven recently that if entangled partners interacted at any finite speed, then you could send faster-than-light signals. Since this wouldn't be consistent with special relativity, it is a proof that the interaction must be instantaneous ("infinite speed").Non-sequitur. Any local interpretation posits no interaction at all between the entangled pair, so there is no need for any signal, FTL or otherwise. Some interpretations deny wave function collapse. None of the interpretations are science. That's why they're interpretations instead of theories. QM is a theory and makes concrete empirical predictions, none of which involves FTL interactions.Quotehttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/012001/pdfAgain, "possibility". QM does not disallow this possibility, and I never said otherwise.
Basic Theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Possibility of
Passing on Information Faster than the Speed of Light
This article seems to have been written by a complete amateur or high-school student. The web is full of such articles. Interesting that you need to reach to this level to find support.Quote"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the QuantumThis talks about some interpretation (philosophy), not QM (science). My statement was that QM does not conclude or posit FTL interaction between entangled particles, and you're citing nothing but sites about something other than QM, or articles written by non-physicists.
Liar Paradox
W.M. Stuckey1
, Michael Silberstein2,3 and Michael Cifone3
Abstract
The Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics
is introduced.QuoteAbsolute Space-Time and MeasurementThis seem to suggest a local method to determine an absolute frame, which would rock the world if it worked. I can probably find 100 sites/posts making similar claims.
"Abstract
The concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definite
meaning in quantum mechanics. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing an absolute notion of space-time. We also propose to illustrate that when no measurement is conducted on a quantum system its wave function lives as a wave in the absolute space-time but, when a measurement is to be conducted, we must switch to an ordinary observable frame of reference where the quantum system lives as a particle"
Your choices of sources of information (and your total misrepresentations of every theory in your error laden OP) seem to suggest you're just a science denier instead of somebody genuinely trying to work out an alternative theory for something. I see little point in continuing the discussion then. I'm here to help, not to win a contest of who can find the most links to bad science.
Side note: Special relativity does not conclude or posit the lack of a preferred (absolute) frame. That would be a metaphysical assertion, and SR is an empirical theory.
Of course you are aware, that most of those sources are peer-rewieved (if some of them aren't then my bad), so you don't have any actual right, to dismiss their credibility. Everything, what you said in the citation above, is nothing more, than your educated yet still private opinion...
If you want to discredit any of those sources, you will have to show me some other peer-reviewed papers or aricles, which would prove things otherwise or directly contradict statements from my sources - and then we will be able compare, which source has better credibilty...
This is how I imagine a scientific discussion suppose to look like... But I can be wrong :)
Quote
Oh I have no doubt that you'll get lots of hits on a search like that, many of which assert the 'instantaneous' cause/effect, but QM does not. Most of the sites/posts are not in formats where peers can comment on them pointing out the errors. These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well
Well, on this site:
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258
Quenstions are being answered by such people:
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/volunteers.php
While the one, which I've cited was made by this guy:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Zyp4QCAAAAAJ&hl=en
Do you suggest, that such people would be "torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well"? Are you trying to tell me, that instead providing peer-revieved scientific papers, I should be pasting here links to internet forums or reddit? With all due respect, somehow I put more trust in things, that are published on arxiv or iopscience, than in opinions of some unknown guy from internet forum....
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 00:52:39
Constant velocity c can't equal 0
Of course it doesn't. That's exactly what I was saying.So, it's completely valid.
Which is why your equation is wrong. Your equation says that zero equals the speed of light.
0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0
I can't see no "=" in here: "...> c <..."
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2021 01:45:09
I can't see no "=" in here
Well, I sure do:
0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 01:56:20
I can't see no "=" in here
Well, I sure do:
0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0
But there's no "=" between c and the rest...
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2021 01:59:49
But there's no "=" between c and the rest...
What does "<{...}> c <{...}>" mean, exactly?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 02:18:53
But there's no "=" between c and the rest...
What does "<{...}> c <{...}>" mean, exactly?
I see my mistake - it should be "...< c >..." and not "...> c <..."
and then
0 =<{...}< c suppose to mean: "all values greater or equal 0 and smaller than c
But this:
0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}< c >{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0
Will probably make sense only after everythng between 0 and c would be written as vectors with opposite directions
Post by: Halc on 13/04/2021 02:51:31
And my general point is here the fact, that hyperdeterministic SRT doesn't go too well with such probabilistic representation of physical realityIt does just fine. Of 13 interpretations of quantum mechanics charted in wiki, only four are deterministic, and yes, perhaps Einstein would have favored one of these deterministic interpretations since his distaste for true randomness was documented. He also favored no information transfer faster than light, so a local interpretation might also be favored by Einstein. At his time, such interpretations that met both criteria (notably relative state formulation, Everett, 1957) was introduced a few years after Einstein’s death.
There are also non-deterministic interpretations that still do not involve any true randomness, so no dice rolling. I personally favor one of these, but do not suggest the others are faulty.
Quote
Of course you are aware, that most of those sources are peer-rewieved (if some of them aren't then my bad), so you don't have any actual right, to dismiss their credibility.I pointed out the reasons why each does not back your assertion, denying the credibility of only the one that appeared to have been written by an amateur. Most of the others were not speaking of QM theory, but rather specific interpretations. My claims were about the QM science, and not about metaphysical interpretations, each of which makes different claims as to if and when wave functions collapse.
Quote
Everything, what you said in the citation above, is nothing more, than your educated yet still private opinion...No, each quotation (except the one) was just not contradicting my point since it was talking about something else.
Quote from: Halc
These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM wellThis statement of mine was probably over the top. Each post (again but the one) wasn’t wrong, it just wasn’t talking about QM theory. You need to find a post speaking about the theory itself and not some specific metaphysical interpretation of the observations.
There are plenty of valid interpretations (any of the 6 local ones for starters) that do not posit ‘instantaneous’ interaction between entangled particles. To maintain your claim that there is such an interaction, you would need to do what the physics community has failed to do which is to falsify each of these six interpretations. That’s your responsibility if you’re making the instantaneous claim. None of your quoted sources (except the one again) actually made the claim uncondictionally. They were all conditional on additional premises that QM theory does not posit.
Quote
Do you suggest, that such people would be "torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well"?Only the one guy actually. I apologise for that statement since none of the others deserved it. They were simply all conditional quotes, none actually speaking of what the empirical theory states.
And for the record, I am no expert on quantum theory, but neither am I a dunce.
Quote from: CrazyScientist link=topic=82070.msg635998
"So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second."This statement lacks a frame reference, so is meaningless.
Relative to the ship frame, the ship has not moved, so the pulse has moved 1LS in one second. Relative to what you're calling 'the stationary observer', the pulse has also gone 1 light second after one second, and the ship has moved half that distance, so nothing is moving faster than light in that frame either.
Post by: Origin on 13/04/2021 03:49:28
in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame
in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frameI'm not sure what the points A1 and A2 are.
In the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.
It looks this way to me.
The scenario is there is a point on the x axis we will call A. There is a observer at rest with point A. A space ship flys by at .5 c along the axis. Just as he passes point A, a pulse of light is put out.
From the frame of the observer at rest with point A, 1 second after the ship passes point A and the light flashed, the light will have traveled 1 light-second from point A. The front of the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship.
From the frame of the ship, 1 second after point A passes the ship and the light flashes the light will have traveled 1 light-second in front of the ship and point A will have moved .5 light-seconds behind the ship.
So from the ship's frame after 1 second the light pulse in front of the ship will be 1.5 light-seconds from point A. For the observer at rest after 1 second the light front will be 1 light-second in from point A.
Post by: Origin on 13/04/2021 14:32:29
Space diagrams can be made for Galilean relativity and for Special relativity based on the associated transforms.
You have taken Galilean relativity and added to it that the speed of light is constant. What that means is the Galilean transforms are no longer applicable. So there must be a new set of transforms that we could use to make a new space time diagram that reflects your modified relativity.
The Galilean space time diagram for movement on the x-axis is drawn based on these transforms:
x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t
The Special Relativity space time diagram for movement on the x-axis is based on these transforms:
y' = y
z' = z
Where
What would the transforms be for making space time diagrams in your modified relativity? You clearly cannot use either of the above transforms.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 23:11:18
And my general point is here the fact, that hyperdeterministic SRT doesn't go too well with such probabilistic representation of physical realityIt does just fine. Of 13 interpretations of quantum mechanics charted in wiki, only four are deterministic, and yes, perhaps Einstein would have favored one of these deterministic interpretations since his distaste for true randomness was documented. He also favored no information transfer faster than light, so a local interpretation might also be favored by Einstein. At his time, such interpretations that met both criteria (notably relative state formulation, Everett, 1957) was introduced a few years after Einstein’s death.
There are also non-deterministic interpretations that still do not involve any true randomness, so no dice rolling. I personally favor one of these, but do not suggest the others are faulty.QuoteOf course you are aware, that most of those sources are peer-rewieved (if some of them aren't then my bad), so you don't have any actual right, to dismiss their credibility.I pointed out the reasons why each does not back your assertion, denying the credibility of only the one that appeared to have been written by an amateur. Most of the others were not speaking of QM theory, but rather specific interpretations. My claims were about the QM science, and not about metaphysical interpretations, each of which makes different claims as to if and when wave functions collapse.QuoteEverything, what you said in the citation above, is nothing more, than your educated yet still private opinion...No, each quotation (except the one) was just not contradicting my point since it was talking about something else.Quote from: HalcThese posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM wellThis statement of mine was probably over the top. Each post (again but the one) wasn’t wrong, it just wasn’t talking about QM theory. You need to find a post speaking about the theory itself and not some specific metaphysical interpretation of the observations.
There are plenty of valid interpretations (any of the 6 local ones for starters) that do not posit ‘instantaneous’ interaction between entangled particles. To maintain your claim that there is such an interaction, you would need to do what the physics community has failed to do which is to falsify each of these six interpretations. That’s your responsibility if you’re making the instantaneous claim. None of your quoted sources (except the one again) actually made the claim uncondictionally. They were all conditional on additional premises that QM theory does not posit.QuoteDo you suggest, that such people would be "torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well"?Only the one guy actually. I apologise for that statement since none of the others deserved it. They were simply all conditional quotes, none actually speaking of what the empirical theory states.
And for the record, I am no expert on quantum theory, but neither am I a dunce.
Thanks for that! I was afraid, that I'm dealing here with another "if it's not fully consistent with SRT, then it's wrong" type of a guy :)
Truth is, that you can probably provide just as many (if not more) sources, that will be in a complete disagreement with my sources. What matters here at most, is for me the fact that in the case of QM and relativity big part of the general theory is still based on speculation and interpretation. Because of that, there's a huge open gate for us to further discussion and disagreement - and this is, what make physics so great!
This isn't the first internet scientific forum for me and I can say that here the community still seems to me to be much more open for discussion, that in most of other cases. Problem is, that each time, when want to discuss ideas, which are inconsistent with mainstream narrative, I'm beng treated as n. 1 enemy of the state by 95% of the local community, while my claims are being peremptorily rejected without a single question
I don't know why, but often my controversial claims are taken very personally, only because they don't fit in someone's stable and secure worldview.. It wouldn't be a problem if I would try to prove the flat Earth "theory" or discuss some other nonsense like "proof, that Jesus was from Mars" - problem is, that I speak about actual physics and in most of cases I'm capable of supporting my claims with peer-reviewed sources - and this makes me a very dangerous individual. Hard to count, how many times my threads turned into a total war: my person VS all others, only to be in the end closed by a moderator, when no one was longer able to counter my arguments - but at the same time threads like "scientists created a black hole in CERN and now we're all gonna die" are being kept open for years...
And when it comes to Einstein's relativity things get even worse - every statement, that stands in contradiction to SRT is treated as the worst kind of blasphemy. 98% of people from many different forums treat SRT as somekind of ultimate and undeniable solution to all the problems of modern physics (and there are coulple of them). Any attempt to question or (God forbid) disagree with some of it's predictions marks you as "the enemy", that requires a correction of mind or elimination from scientific society..
And in reality SRT still needs an empirical validation of around 50% of it's theory. Where's DIRECT experimental evidence of lenght contraction or relative simultaneity? There's none - while all other avaliable "in-direct evidences" can be interpreted in at least 6 different ways. I won't even mention about all the unsolvable paradoxes and logical inconsistencies, that still remain unsolved to this day. You have to be a genius, to base a theory on mechanics, that are theoretically impossible to test... Sure - let's just state: "time stops for you to flow at the speed of light" and then prove it by making the speed of light impossible for us to reach. Or even better - let us just assume, that time exist in every moment of it's timeline and keep faith in future generations to prove it....
if you want me to believe in the transccenental genius of Einstein - here's my utimatum:
Give me an experimental evidence to relativity of simultaneity or lenght contraction. You should be able to do it using pairs of protons in a hadron collider. I want to see, if 2 pairs of protons will keep it's synchronsation of lenght and simultaneity after one pair gets accelerated to 0,99c - you can also add a third pair, that moves at 0,99c in opposing direction. Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory . You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right? Maybe for you as a physicist (if you call yourselve as such) deep faith in the genius of Einstein is more than enough for an evidence - but I'm not an educated physicist and I don't trust you enough, to take your word as a granted truth. I require a direct epmpirial evidence - I want to see, if the distance between protons REALLY will become shorter for the pair in motion.
And only after it will possibly turn out, that "Einstein was right once again", I will start treat your funny theories, like that one known as "block model of univese", as something more, than fantastic stories about people moving back in time, to prevent their own birth from happening by killing the grandfather of John Connor or memories of a bad acid trip, where universe has (at least) 11 different dimensions and where everything what for someone can possibly ever happen actually happens and lives t's own life independent from the one, who saw a different outcome (I thinlk, that in your relligion acolytes call it "many-world interpretation"). I also like cartoons from adult-swim and all those old-school holywood movies from early 80's and 90's - but in the difference to theoretical physicists, I dont believe things from Rick and Morty...
What do you say? That I'm asking for too much? HAHA! In the amazing case of Einstein's special-care relativity It is as minimal as you possibly can get for a requirement of an evidence - it is at least possible for you, to satisfy my needs. I could for example ask for any possible evidence, that might suggest the physical existence of time beyond the moment of real-time measurement - good luck with that!
Sadly, until you won't provide me with the evidence I'm asking for (direct proof of lenght contraction) I won't change my anty-scientific behavior of endangering physicists to prolonged contact with those of scientific facts and theories, which shouldn't be mentioned by any well-behaving physicists after 10 years of academic indoctrination..
And if you believe, that we live in a world, which is based on the "block-model of universe", better keep a strong faith, that such results will eventually prove the lenght contraction, because as someone, who's being treated as a heretic for proposing an alternative model of constant c in relative motion by people who think that "Back To The Future" is consistent with actual physics I can tel you - it won't be good for you, if it would turn out, that Einstein wasn't exactly right in his bold assumptions...
And for end I would like to give you an example of a theoretical model of physics, which I consider as succesfull. For me such model is known as MHD (magnetohydrodnamics) - perfect example of a theory that seems to really work in practice - this is what I consider as physics. Sadly, SRT looks to me like story of a cheap sci-fi movie with more "-fi" than "sci-".
I hope, that you're smart enough to not take any of this personally
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 23:32:38
in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this framein the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frameI'm not sure what the points A1 and A2 are.
In the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.
It looks this way to me.
The scenario is there is a point on the x axis we will call A. There is a observer at rest with point A. A space ship flys by at .5 c along the axis. Just as he passes point A, a pulse of light is put out.
From the frame of the observer at rest with point A, 1 second after the ship passes point A and the light flashed, the light will have traveled 1 light-second from point A. The front of the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship.
From the frame of the ship, 1 second after point A passes the ship and the light flashes the light will have traveled 1 light-second in front of the ship and point A will have moved .5 light-seconds behind the ship.
So from the ship's frame after 1 second the light pulse in front of the ship will be 1.5 light-seconds from point A. For the observer at rest after 1 second the light front will be 1 light-second in from point A.
There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously - it can't be moving and not moving at the same time, to remain stationary in both inertial frames, so your entire eplanation doesn't make any sense.
In the case of light point of emission is an abstract and non-existent geometrical concept.that CAN exist in 2 forms simultaneously: as stationary A1 for stationary observer and as stationary A2 for moving starship. In the inertial frame of space ship stationary point of emission A2 = light source, while in the inertial frame of stationary stationary point of emission A1 ≠ source of light. Doppler's effect is observed in EVERY case of light emission from a moving source - it will always look like this
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Dopplereffectsourcemovingrightatmach0.7.gif)
And after 1s from moment of emission, distance between source (your star ship) and the wavefront will be ALWAYS shorter, than 1ls. You won't explain this, by using a single stationry point of emission A for both inertial frames - so each inertial frame has it's own individual stationary point of emission A1 and A2
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/04/2021 23:57:29
tunately a lot of this thread is ending up being little more than hand waving. I think the problem is your hypotheses has not been formalized enough to make it clear what is going on.
Space diagrams can be made for Galilean relativity and for Special relativity based on the associated transforms.
You have taken Galilean relativity and added to it that the speed of light is constant. What that means is the Galilean transforms are no longer applicable. So there must be a new set of transforms that we could use to make a new space time diagram that reflects your modified relativity.
Thanks! That's a valid point and here's the explanation: In my model Galilean transformation is being applied to relative velocities (basically all velocities except c), In the case of light emission transformation is made by associating every frame with an individual and characteristic point of emission that remains stattionary in every inertial frame. It is then possible to represent 2 or more inertial frames on a single diagram, by applying Gailean transformation to the light cone of a moving source:
(https://i.postimg.cc/02Y9F2YH/bandicam-2021-01-18-03-50-11-744.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpWRLwXC/zz99yyzzz.jpg)
It might appear invalid, but constant c is here still fully maintained in two-directional motion - so those results are in 100% theoretically valid.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bv1tC2yV/pip4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHqc6SH2/mirror.jpg)
So, in the end my modifications of the classic Galilean relativity are actually minimal. All I do, is to unassociate the geometrical center of light emission from a moving source of light, while all actual transformation are still being made using the standard formula. To be honest, I feel kinda stupid, to claim this model as "my own", since it's practically the old Galilean model in some 98% ...
Post by: Origin on 14/04/2021 02:07:57
There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously - it can't be moving and not moving at the same time, to remain stationary in both frames, so your entire eplanation doesn't make any sense.Are you seriously trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to say they are at rest and the other frame is moving?
Thanks! That's a valid point and here's the explanation:I specifically wasn't looking for an explanation, I was looking for some mathematics to show how to draw the space diagram for you version of relativity.
You still need to explain how in the ship's frame the light pulse travels 1.5 light-seconds from point A and in the rest frame the light pulse travels 1 light-second from point A.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/04/2021 02:22:19
There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneously - it can't be moving and not moving at the same time, to remain stationary in both frames, so your entire eplanation doesn't make any sense.Are you seriously trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to say they are at rest and the other frame is moving?
No. I'm trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to share the same geometrical center of light emission with anoher frame with non-0 relative velocity
Thanks! That's a valid point and here's the explanation:I specifically wasn't looking for an explanation, I was looking for some mathematics to show how to draw the space diagram for you version of relativity.
In Galilean relativity you simply add or subtract relative velocities depending on the direction of relative motion - you learn about it in the primary school. And when it comes to transformation of coordinates on a diagram, images below will show you, how to do it for 3 frames in relative motion (1 stationary and 2 incoming from both sides at 0,25c)
(https://i.ibb.co/2MTtFJ6/bandicam-2018-11-10-01-07-39-155.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/NLZx1V2/bandicam-2018-11-10-01-09-34-751.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/FY74RTK/bandicam-2018-11-10-01-12-16-295.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/pZ1m0Y3/bandicam-2018-11-13-12-10-48-460.jpg)
Quote
You still need to explain how in the ship's frame the light pulse travels 1.5 light-seconds from point A and in the rest frame the light pulse travels 1 light-second from point A.
It doesn't, since there''s no point A.
It travels 1ls from point A1 in the inertial frame of stationary observer
It travels 1ls from point A2 in the inertial frame of space ship
It travels 1,5ls from point A2 in the inertial frame of observer - but point A2 is characteristic to the inertial frame of space ship, so this relation is not valid - and it doesn't suppose to be...
Post by: Origin on 14/04/2021 02:40:12
No. I'm trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to share the same geometrical center of light emission with anoher frame with non-0 relative velocityI don't know what that means.
If there was something wrong with my analysis please specifically point it out.
In Galilean relativity you simply add or subtract relative velocities depending on the direction of relative motion - you learn about it in the primary school. And when it comes to transformation of coordinates on a diagram, images below will show you, how to do it for 3 frames in relative motion (1 stationary and 2 incoming from both sides at 0,25c)So I assume you don't have math for the transforms.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/04/2021 03:11:18
No. I'm trying to say that each reference frame is not allowed to share the same geometrical center of light emission with anoher frame with non-0 relative velocityI don't know what that means.
If there was something wrong with my analysis please specifically point it out.
Which part of that sentence can't you understand?
Your analysis is wrong because you keep using the same geometrical center of light emission A for both frames and I keep telling you, that it won't work - you need to have 2 different points of emission A1 and A2 for both frames:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g05gMw5p/dop1.gif)(https://i.postimg.cc/7PSKVZNv/dop.gif)
If this won't help, then nothing will...
So you assumed, that I didn't finish primary school?In Galilean relativity you simply add or subtract relative velocities depending on the direction of relative motion - you learn about it in the primary school. And when it comes to transformation of coordinates on a diagram, images below will show you, how to do it for 3 frames in relative motion (1 stationary and 2 incoming from both sides at 0,25c)So I assume you don't have math for the transforms.
If in an inertial frame vt is the sum of 2 relative velocities v1 and v2 then:
vt=v1+v2 for relative motion in opposite directions
vt=v1-v2 for relative motion in the same direction
And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
Post by: Halc on 14/04/2021 05:43:21
I was afraid, that I'm dealing here with another "if it's not fully consistent with SRT, then it's wrong" type of a guyMy concern is that you are taking the same two premises as SRT and yet concluding something different. Since all of the conclusions of SRT logically follow from the premises, it means that either you (an admitted unscientific person working only from a ‘humble opinion’) or Einstein did the mathematics or logic incorrectly. Given that you’ve not done any mathemtatics, the case you make for your opinion is pretty weak.
On the other hand, the pictures are top notch. I’m jealous.
Quote
Truth is, that you can probably provide just as many (if not more) sources, that will be in a complete disagreement with my sources.Most of your sources were not wrong, they just were not talking about Quantum Theory, but rather a counterfactual interpretation like Bohmian mechanics which does very much posit faster than light interaction between entangled particles, but any such interpretation also requires effect to precede cause in some cases, and not just a little bit. Bohmian mechanics (like any valid interpretation of QM) makes no predictions, and thus does not qualify as a scientific theory. I was talking about quantum theory, which is empirical physics and thus does make predictions and not unverifiable assertions.
Quote
What matters here at most, is for me the fact that in the case of QM and relativity big part of the general theory is still based on speculation and interpretation.Incorrect. The respective interpretations are not part of the theory. They’re added metaphysical speculations and rightfully are kept separate from the actual theory. If you take a QM class in grad school, they might touch on the various interpretations one day, but the class is not about them and only the theory part is taught and included in the tests. The interpretations are for pop articles which have massive appetites for such things. So do I, which is why I’m on forums instead of doing actual physics work.
Quote
I don't know why, but often my controversial claims are taken very personally, only because they don't fit in someone's stable and secure worldview.They’re rejected for being self inconsistent, not for being controversial. New ideas are a good thing, but not inconsistent ideas.
Quote
in most of cases I'm capable of supporting my claims with peer-reviewed sources - and this makes me a very dangerous individual.If your theory is really different, peer reviewed sources will not support it since it is a new idea. It will make empirical predictions that differ from the competing theory, and that would suggest a falsification test eliminating one theory or the other. Your idea doesn’t even get that far because it isn’t self-consistent. If it involves X is true and X is also not true, then nobody is going to bother testing it. You perhaps don’t see the inconsistency due to your refusal to do the mathematics.
Quote
Hard to count, how many times my threads turned into a total war: my person VS all others, only to be in the end closed by a moderatorSome forums have rules about posters that will not see inconsistencies when spelled out clearly by other members. This forum seems more open to letting them carry on so long as it isn’t in the sections reserved for discussion of accepted science.
Quote
And when it comes to Einstein's relativity things get even worse - every statement, that stands in contradiction to SRT is treated as the worst kind of blasphemy.Why does everyone want to attack that theory? It is simple, and follows logically from the simplest premises which are easily verified by experiment. Pick something less established if you want to stand a chance.
How about an argument that the universe is but 6000 years old? There's real money to be made if you can do that convincingly.
Quote
98% of people from many different forums treat SRT as somekind of ultimate and undeniable solution to all the problems of modern physics (and there are coulple of them).Hardly. For one, it is up front about not being a description of the universe since the geometry of the universe isn’t Minkowskian. GR also doesn’t describe the universe, but it at least serves as a set of equations that must be satisfied by any actual description of the universe. The FLRW models are actual descriptions of the universe, but they’re not mentioned in GR theory.
Quote
Any attempt to question or (God forbid) disagree with some of it's predictions marks you as "the enemy", that requires a correction of mind or elimination from scientific society.Not an enemy at all, but I think you’d not be employable as a physicist. They need people capable of working out the implications of new ideas.
Quote
And in reality SRT still needs an empirical validation of around 50% of it's theory. Where's DIRECT experimental evidence of length contraction or relative simultaneity?In the frame in which a muon is stationary in Earth’s upper atmosphere, it is going to decay in about 1.5 usec, enough time for something to move at most 450 meters. The atmosphere is much thicker than that, but in the frame of the muon, it contracts to well under 450 meters enabling Earth (moving at nearly light speed) to reach it before it decays. That’s direct evidence of length contraction. RoS is strictly an abstract relation since it is a coordinate effect.
You are speaking the language of a denier zealot. You’re quoting their (fallacious) arguments. Your ideas seem to be those of your peers rather than your own. You seem more interested in denial than in science. Your credibility falls as you bring up such arguments rather than defending/analyzing your idea.
Quote
There's none - while all other avaliable "in-direct evidences" can be interpreted in at least 6 different ways.That they can. LET for instance adds a premise of a preferred foliation, but it still maintains real length contraction for a moving thing. In asserting the preferred frame, it at least does away with RoS (and shows that RoS cannot be directly demonstrated). But it has its faults since there is no coordinate system that foliates all of spacetime, and thus no candidate frame exists for the preferred one. That’s a real problem that has to be solved by an interpretation that asserts the existence of such a thing.
Quote
I won't even mention about all the unsolvable paradoxes and logical inconsistencies, that still remain unsolved to this day.That’s good, since it relieves me of having to show why the ‘paradox’ isn’t actually one. The Sagnac one is always a favorite of the deniers, despite the fact that SR predicts its behavior exactly.
Quote
You have to be a genius, to base a theory on mechanics, that are theoretically impossible to test.All theories are impossible to prove. But they’re easy to disprove, and the lack of anybody doing so in a century should tell you something, but it’s apparently something you don’t want to know.
Quote
Sure - let's just state: "time stops for you to flow at the speed of light"That would violate principle of relativity. Time cannot stop for you at any speed since that would define a frame in which the laws of physics were different, and would falsify the first premise. So if you can manage to get time to stop for you, you’ve got your proof.
Quote
I want to see, if 2 pairs of protons will keep it's synchronsation of lenght and simultaneityWhat do those words mean???
Quote
Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory. You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right?You want to take a pair of protons that are distance D apart and apply identical proper acceleration to both of them? They’ll stay D apart at any speed relative to the lab frame. Maybe you’re trying to describe something else.
Quote
Maybe for you as a physicist (if you call yourselve as such)I’m a software engineer who has never taken a class in quantum mechanics or relativity. But I can read.
The only thing that Einstein could do that other could not was to drop his biases when they became questionable. Lorentz could not do it and thus did not publish before Einstein, despite his head start on the same work. The SR work was not particularly a work of genius, and he said that the state of science was ripe for it. Without him, somebody else would have come up with it within a year or so. The GR work was the masterpiece, and even there he asked for and received help with the mathematics in places.
Quote
I require a direct epmpirial evidenceNo you don’t. The fact that you’re putting out your OP without a scrape of empirical evidence backing it means that this is of no importance to you. You’re lying to yourself now.
Quote
I want to see, if the distance between protons REALLY will become shorter for the pair in motion.The the protons bonded in a helium atom or something? If not, I see no reason why the distance between them would change after identical acceleration.
There's one main issue with this: point A as an physical object CAN'T exist in both frames simultaneouslyThis makes no sense. In something like Minkowski spaceitme, all objects exist in all frames. They just have different coordinates in one frame than in another. I’m not so sure you have any idea what a frame of reference is.
Post by: Colin2B on 14/04/2021 10:10:11
Your analysis is wrong because you keep using the same geometrical center of light emission A for both frames and I keep telling you, that it won't work - you need to have 2 different points of emission A1 and A2 for both frames:Galilean relativity treats any event as being the same event in all frames, it doesn't postulate 2 different events. So your starting point is not Galilean Relativity.
And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
I must commend you on the degree of thinking you've put into this, but as others have pointed out there are inconsistencies which are nothing to do with SRT.
Have a look at emission theory which should turn up in any search. It has some of the ideas you are chasing and you can see why it was rejected.
It's important to remember that Einstein started his theory due to anomalies in the behaviour of moving electric and magnetic fields. You theory has to also explain these anomalies, some of which rely on length contraction in the wire. See https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Modern_Physics/Book%3A_Spiral_Modern_Physics_(D%27Alessandris)/1%3A_The_Special_Theory_of_Relativity_-_Kinematics/1.8%3A_Length_Contraction_and_the_Magnetic_Force__(Project)
Keep thinking :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/04/2021 18:08:02
Your analysis is wrong because you keep using the same geometrical center of light emission A for both frames and I keep telling you, that it won't work - you need to have 2 different points of emission A1 and A2 for both frames:Galilean relativity treats any event as being the same event in all frames, it doesn't postulate 2 different events. So your starting point is not Galilean Relativity.
And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
I must commend you on the degree of thinking you've put into this, but as others have pointed out there are inconsistencies which are nothing to do with SRT.
Have a look at emission theory which should turn up in any search. It has some of the ideas you are chasing and you can see why it was rejected.
It's important to remember that Einstein started his theory due to anomalies in the behaviour of moving electric and magnetic fields. You theory has to also explain these anomalies, some of which rely on length contraction in the wire. See https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Modern_Physics/Book%3A_Spiral_Modern_Physics_(D%27Alessandris)/1%3A_The_Special_Theory_of_Relativity_-_Kinematics/1.8%3A_Length_Contraction_and_the_Magnetic_Force__(Project)
Keep thinking :)
Thanks! As I explained in my last replies, my model is using Galilean transformation and standard velocity addition, but it isn't in 100% consistent with Galilean model of relative motion - only with some 98% of it. I figured out, that in order to solve the problem of constant velocity c in relative motion, I should make the most obvious thing and try to fix the mechanics in a previo working model of reative motion. And then I've added those 2% of mine to those mechanics, to makie the emission of light an exceptional event, that thoesn't fully obey the rules of Galilean model, because of the constant nature of c. You can say, that I've made an upgrade of Galilean relativity to version 2.0 by adding a single line in the code of ir's engine
There's nothing revolutionary about my theory - it's the most simple solution to the given problem. Instead building a completely new model of relative motion in space, that completely overturns everything we understand about the nature of reality itself, I've made the constant c to work in the old "boring" model of time and space. You can call such kind of approach as "revolution through improvement" or simply "progress" :)
Thanks for the information about emission theory - I never heard about it before. But after making a basic research, I can say, that while looking similar to my model, it predicts different results. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
this:
Quote
In 1910 Daniel Frost Comstock and in 1913 Willem de Sitter wrote that for the case of a double-star system seen edge-on, light from the approaching star might be expected to travel faster than light from its receding companion, and overtake it. If the distance was great enough for an approaching star's "fast" signal to catch up with and overtake the "slow" light that it had emitted earlier when it was receding, then the image of the star system should appear completely scrambled.
is completely inconstent with predictions of my model, where light can't overtake sme other light in an inertial frame of observer. Light emitted by moving (and stationary) sources will always approach the observer with the same and conastant velocity c.
What my model predicts in case of double-star system, is a shift of frequency in their orbital cycle due to Doppler effect - frequency of cycles is higher when the double-star system is approaching Earth and lower for a system, that moves away. Again - nothing revolutionary, but experimentally proven...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/04/2021 23:49:37
Quote from: CrazyScientist on Yesterday at 23:11:18
I was afraid, that I'm dealing here with another "if it's not fully consistent with SRT, then it's wrong" type of a guy
My concern is that you are taking the same two premises as SRT and yet concluding something different. Since all of the conclusions of SRT logically follow from the premises, it means that either you (an admitted unscientific person working only from a ‘humble opinion’) or Einstein did the mathematics or logic incorrectly. Given that you’ve not done any mathemtatics, the case you make for your opinion is pretty weak.
Thanks! You see, I'm a quite lazy person and I don't find any joy in writing down endless strings of mathematical equations, so I do the math only if there's absolutely no other choice and in 98% of all cases I let others to do the math instead of me :) Up until now I didn't make here nothing that would go beyond the math invented couple centuries ago by Newton and Galileo. Instead wasting the virual space of this forum, to copy-paste equations from wikipedia, I prefer to paste a link to the source and use a visual representation of the same math.
We're living in the time of computers and global communication, what allows us to save a lot of time. What's the point in spending couple days to manually calculate all the Lorentz transformations from my scenarios, if I can use an interactive Minkovski diagram tool from this site: http://ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html and get the same results in form of a fancy graphic?
However it's not true, that I didn't use any math in this thread - in my previous posts I did try to came up with my own math to represent all velocities used in my model with an actual equation - and I came out with this:
0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}< c >{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0
You have to admit at least, that it has a nice artistic composition. However I'm still working on it - I want to write it down as velocity vectors v1 and v2 pointing towards c, but I don't know how. Maybe you can help me? I'm sure, that you're good in math...
You need to know as well, that I will give you some taste of my own math in the near future in another thread of mine, where I will try to replace SRT with my model of relative motion in the general theory of all physical forces. I did actually spent couple days with a pen over a piece of paper, to figure out a new form of mass/energy equivalence consistent with my model of relativity. But it's still not the right time to show it, as you still seem to reject the already existing math, which is used here...
Here's my attempt of implementing gravity in my model of relativity...:
(https://i.ibb.co/NYbscsQ/dh.gif)
Quote
On the other hand, the pictures are top notch. I’m jealous.
Thanks a lot! I believe that a proper visual representation explains things better than plain text and mile-long equations. And believe me, that I have much more of this. I'm using a 3D graphics software as a working simulation of my relativity model, where I can just specify all the necessary imput values, while results compute themselves. Many times I've spent an hour just to watch the animations - they look so damn cool :) Just look at this:
But the real fun will begin when you realize, that besides looking cool, each element of that animation has some concrete purpose and all of this can be used to calculate actual numerical values, that are in 100% valid mathematically - for example frequency rates for frames in relative motion:
And because my computer is making all the necessary calculations instead of me, there won't be a single mistake in the process. This is how I'm doing math...
And it doesn't end here. If you want some real math, here's something for you - a formula, which allows you to calculate the exact value of an relativistic effect, that is predicted only in my model - I deduced it from the famous scenario with moving light clock and called it "width contraction". Here's how I did it:
Scenario: 3 frames in relative motion - 1 stationary, 1 moving at 0,25c and 1 moving at 0,5c. Each frame contains identical copy of a light clock oriented perpendiculary to the motion of frame
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtY52xbR/clockimove.gif)
Einstein's solution: let's make the time to flow at different rate in each frame...
My solution: let's add the mising dimension Y for perpendicular motion of photon in the light clock:
1. Y-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/JztY0kwS/a6.jpg)
2. X-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMY07Tcj/xcut.gif)
3. T-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/brwN4hdX/tcut.gif)
3D:
Then I've used the light cone of every frame to see how distance in dimension Y is being contracted due to Doppler shift :
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2nTrPgM/bandicam-2018-12-23-05-33-50-422.jpg)
And then I needed around hour, before I figuret out that in order to calculate it, all I need is the classic Pythagorean formula:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTLyY6jJ/00001.jpg)
So I've calculated all required values and appilied them to the simulation. Then I did the same for different relative velocities and guess what - it worked each single time:
(https://i.postimg.cc/m284HCPw/clock.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRXWy6J0/bandicam-2018-12-27-09-01-46-134.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2PLSpQh/ziel.gif)
Einstein's solution: let's make the time to flow at different rate in each frame...
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/vDwGr.png)
My solution: let's add the mising dimension Y for perpendicular motion of photon in the light clock:
1. Y-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/JztY0kwS/a6.jpg)
2. X-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMY07Tcj/xcut.gif)
3. T-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/brwN4hdX/tcut.gif)
3D:
Then I've used the light cone of every frame to see how distance in dimension Y is being contracted due to Doppler shift :
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2nTrPgM/bandicam-2018-12-23-05-33-50-422.jpg)
And then I needed around hour, before I figuret out that in order to calculate it, all I need is the classic Pythagorean formula:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTLyY6jJ/00001.jpg)
So I've calculated all required values and appilied them to the simulation. Then I did the same for different relative velocities and guess what - it worked each single time:
(https://i.postimg.cc/m284HCPw/clock.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRXWy6J0/bandicam-2018-12-27-09-01-46-134.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2PLSpQh/ziel.gif)
So here you have it - concrete numerical prediction, that no other model predicts. I'm absolutely sure, that my math is 100% correct...
I will soon reply to the rest, because this comment is already long enough
Post by: Halc on 15/04/2021 14:17:19
What's the point in spending couple days to manually calculate all the Lorentz transformations from my scenarios, if I can use an interactive Minkovski diagram tool from this site: http://ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html and get the same results in form of a fancy graphic?And bandicam to capture the animations.
By using such a program, you’re essentially utilizing the conclusions of special relativity, so I’m not so sure how you think the tool would be helpful in demonstrating your own model that differs from it, but then you seem to use a different tool to express your own proposal further down.
Quote
Here's my attempt of implementing gravity in my model of relativity...:One cannot use a Minkowski simulation program to demonstrate gravity. Minkowski spacetime by definition does not involve gravity.
You seemingly depict gravity as something that radiates away from an object, at light speed which is wrong. Gravity is expressed with the stress energy tensor which is covariant under frame transformations.
Quote
Scenario: 3 frames in relative motion - 1 stationary, 1 moving at 0,25c and 1 moving at 0,5c. Each frame contains identical copy of a light clock oriented perpendiculary to the motion of frameNot sure what you’re trying to depict. The green ball seems to be the light clock, but it moves at different speeds for the 3 balls. The blue ball especially has waves propagating from it at faster than light speed, which makes little sense. Not sure what you’re trying to depict. You need a lot more description with each picture to describe what each of the things (waves, different colored balls) is.
Red and blue balls seem to move at the same speed but opposite directions, which contradicts your description. The yellow balls track the expanding circles, so I assume that’s light speed, but some of the black balls outrun the yellow ones, which doesn’t make sense.
Quote
My solution: let's add the mising dimension Y for perpendicular motion of photon in the light clock:The T-cut shot definitely shows the green balls moving at different speeds.
3. T-cut
You then apparently attempt to compensate for this longer path with width contraction. How does this help when the light clock is oriented with the motion instead of perpendicular to it? You seem to have only considered the one case.
Your 'width contraction' suggestion isn't symmetrical. If I have two identical rings moving towards each other quickly along their mutual axis, in the frame of a given ring, the one ring will be stationary and the other ring will be contracted due to the high speed. The moving one will fit through that stationary one without hitting it. Relative to the frame of the second ring, the first ring will pass through the second. Relative to the frame of the center of mass of the system, the two rings are contracted identically and will collide. That's a different physical result in each of the three abstract reference frames, which violates the principle of relativity. Only one of these scenarios can actually happen, so the laws of physics are different in one frame than in another.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/04/2021 22:00:22
Most of your sources were not wrong, they just were not talking about Quantum Theory, but rather a counterfactual interpretation like Bohmian mechanics which does very much posit faster than light interaction between entangled particles, but any such interpretation also requires effect to precede cause in some cases, and not just a little bit. Bohmian mechanics (like any valid interpretation of QM) makes no predictions, and thus does not qualify as a scientific theory. I was talking about quantum theory, which is empirical physics and thus does make predictions and not unverifiable assertions.
Quote
Incorrect. The respective interpretations are not part of the theory. They’re added metaphysical speculations and rightfully are kept separate from the actual theory. If you take a QM class in grad school, they might touch on the various interpretations one day, but the class is not about them and only the theory part is taught and included in the tests. The interpretations are for pop articles which have massive appetites for such things. So do I, which is why I’m on forums instead of doing actual physics work.I completely agree. QM explains HOW observed processes take place, but it doesn't try to explain WHY they take place - this is a subject, where theoretical physicists are free to make their own iterpretations of numerical results, in order to explain, how they are even possible.
Quote
They’re rejected for being self inconsistent, not for being controversial. New ideas are a good thing, but not inconsistent ideas.vvIn most of the cases, no one didn't even try to prove any inconsistency in my statetements - in order to do that, they would need to discuss my ideas. I found couple people, who actually wanted to speak with me - like the guy named Markus Hanke. I really appreciate his efforts, epecially since he seems to be quite well educated. On the other hand moderator of this forum (ffdyddydddfff - or smth like that) did everything to shut me up, without any discussion.
Quote
If your theory is really different, peer reviewed sources will not support it since it is a new idea. It will make empirical predictions that differ from the competing theory, and that would suggest a falsification test eliminating one theory or the other. Your idea doesn’t even get that far because it isn’t self-consistent. If it involves X is true and X is also not true, then nobody is going to bother testing it. You perhaps don’t see the inconsistency due to your refusal to do the mathematics.Actually my theory makes couple strictly numerical predictions that can be tested in a laboratory - like the "width contraction", which I've explained in my previous post.
Quote
Some forums have rules about posters that will not see inconsistencies when spelled out clearly by other members. This forum seems more open to letting them carry on so long as it isn’t in the sections reserved for discussion of accepted science.Yes - and I really appreciate it. All I'm looking for are some people willing to discuss my ideas.
Quote
Why does everyone want to attack that theory? It is simple, and follows logically from the simplest premises which are easily verified by experiment. Pick something less established if you want to stand a chance.It's becuse I see too many logical inconsitencies in the SRT and I have an alterntive model, which is capable to solve those inconsistencies. Show me any other theory in physics that leads to so many paradoxes, as SRT does...
How about an argument that the universe is but 6000 years old? There's real money to be made if you can do that convincingly.
Quote
Not an enemy at all, but I think you’d not be employable as a physicist. They need people capable of working out the implications of new ideas.Maybe not for you or couple members of this forum. But if you'd see, what happened on other forums, you wouldn't be so sure anymore - mostly there was a pure hatred directed towards my person.
Quote
In the frame in which a muon is stationary in Earth’s upper atmosphere, it is going to decay in about 1.5 usec, enough time for something to move at most 450 meters. The atmosphere is much thicker than that, but in the frame of the muon, it contracts to well under 450 meters enabling Earth (moving at nearly light speed) to reach it before it decays. That’s direct evidence of length contraction. RoS is strictly an abstract relation since it is a coordinate effect.I know about that - but it's still an INDIRECT evidence that can be interpreted in multiple different ways. I can also give you my own interpretation of this phenomenon
You are speaking the language of a denier zealot. You’re quoting their (fallacious) arguments. Your ideas seem to be those of your peers rather than your own. You seem more interested in denial than in science. Your credibility falls as you bring up such arguments rather than defending/analyzing your idea.
Quote
That they can. LET for instance adds a premise of a preferred foliation, but it still maintains real length contraction for a moving thing. In asserting the preferred frame, it at least does away with RoS (and shows that RoS cannot be directly demonstrated). But it has its faults since there is no coordinate system that foliates all of spacetime, and thus no candidate frame exists for the preferred one. That’s a real problem that has to be solved by an interpretation that asserts the existence of such a thing.Thanks! Nothing to add here :)
Quote
That’s good, since it relieves me of having to show why the ‘paradox’ isn’t actually one. The Sagnac one is always a favorite of the deniers, despite the fact that SR predicts its behavior exactly.There's much more than that - for example the "twin paradox", which can't be solved in one-directional motion of a frame and is being explained with additional conditions, like two-directional motion of the moving twin or the influence of gravity on the frame of a stationary twin.
Quote
All theories are impossible to prove. But they’re easy to disprove, and the lack of anybody doing so in a century should tell you something, but it’s apparently something you don’t want to know.I would disagree here. There are multiple thories, that were proved experimentally and became working models - like the MHD, which I've mentioned in my previous post
Quote
That would violate principle of relativity. Time cannot stop for you at any speed since that would define a frame in which the laws of physics were different, and would falsify the first premise. So if you can manage to get time to stop for you, you’ve got your proof.Then congratulations - you just pointed out another logical inconsistency in the SRT :)
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.html
Quote
Quote
I want to see, if 2 pairs of protons will keep it's synchronsation of lenght and simultaneityQuoteWhat do those words mean???
Quote
Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory. You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right?Sorry for not being specific enough. What I had in mind, is a scenario with two identical pairs of protons with one pair being accelerated and where each proton in a moving pair is passing next to a proton from stationary pair simultaneously. Yo see - it's better for our communication, when I use fancy images:QuoteYou want to take a pair of protons that are distance D apart and apply identical proper acceleration to both of them? They’ll stay D apart at any speed relative to the lab frame. Maybe you’re trying to describe something else.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FskvVRNY/protons.gif)
According to SRT simultaneity will be lost since distance between protons will get shorter - am I right?Quote
I’m a software engineer who has never taken a class in quantum mechanics or relativity. But I can read.I wouldn't have too much against GRT if it wouldn't be based on SRT, which I personally consider as invalid and completely unnecessary :)
The only thing that Einstein could do that other could not was to drop his biases when they became questionable. Lorentz could not do it and thus did not publish before Einstein, despite his head start on the same work. The SR work was not particularly a work of genius, and he said that the state of science was ripe for it. Without him, somebody else would have come up with it within a year or so. The GR work was the masterpiece, and even there he asked for and received help with the mathematics in places.
Quote
No you don’t. The fact that you’re putting out your OP without a scrape of empirical evidence backing it means that this is of no importance to you. You’re lying to yourself now.Yes I do :) Who said that I can't back up my claims with evidences? I just didn't manage to go o far with my explanations
Quote
The the protons bonded in a helium atom or something? If not, I see no reason why the distance between them would change after identical acceleration.Sorry once again for misundersanding - only one pair should be accelerated
Quote
This makes no sense. In something like Minkowski spaceitme, all objects exist in all frames. They just have different coordinates in one frame than in another. I’m not so sure you have any idea what a frame of reference is.And once again I wasn't specific. I wanted to say that it can't exist in all frames as a stationary object
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/04/2021 22:21:07
And bandicam to capture the animations.In order to do that, I would have to use a software that utilizes Lorentz transormation - and the one I'm using doesn't. All results are are in 100% results of Galilean transformtion and standard velocity addition.
By using such a program, you’re essentially utilizing the conclusions of special relativity, so I’m not so sure how you think the tool would be helpful in demonstrating your own model that differs from it, but then you seem to use a different tool to express your own proposal further down.
Quote
One cannot use a Minkowski simulation program to demonstrate gravity. Minkowski spacetime by definition does not involve gravity.I don't expect it to be consistent with GR, since it's based on a different model of relative motion. You're close with your conclusions - i my model gravity is a standing wave
You seemingly depict gravity as something that radiates away from an object, at light speed which is wrong. Gravity is expressed with the stress energy tensor which is covariant under frame transformations.
Quote
Not sure what you’re trying to depict. The green ball seems to be the light clock, but it moves at different speeds for the 3 balls. The blue ball especially has waves propagating from it at faster than light speed, which makes little sense. Not sure what you’re trying to depict. You need a lot more description with each picture to describe what each of the things (waves, different colored balls) is.That's true. This is all because this software doesn't represent SRT and photons in moving light clocks exceed the speed of light. SRT solves this issue with time dilation and I solve it by contraction of perpendicular Y dimension due to Doppler shift
Red and blue balls seem to move at the same speed but opposite directions, which contradicts your description. The yellow balls track the expanding circles, so I assume that’s light speed, but some of the black balls outrun the yellow ones, which doesn’t make sense.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/04/2021 22:27:23
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRXWy6J0/bandicam-2018-12-27-09-01-46-134.jpg)
It is the t-cut view. Clock is moving at 0,75c and calculaton is made 1 time unit after emmisiondistance a comes from the constant velocity c, while distance b comes from relative velocity v, diistance c is then the predicted contraction of lenght in Y dimension
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/04/2021 23:41:12
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/04/2021 03:14:54
(https://i.postimg.cc/G38V4G98/angular.png)
Let's discuss a scenario in which we use a veeeeeryy long stick to accelerate an object mounted to one end of that stick to the speed of c and beyond using the property of angular motion (velocity grows together with the distance to center of rotation).
If I'm correct SRT will try to deal with this problem using the lenght contraction on angular motion, to prevent the frame on the end of stick to reach the speed of light or exceed it - is this true? If so, we'll end up with a serious problem - number of full rotations around the central point won't be the same for the object at the far end of stick as for someone who's placed much closer to the center of rotation. How SRT deals with that problem? Honestly, I have no idea myself, as all of this came to my mind couple minutes ago. I'll give myself some time, to check if I was right about the lenght contraction and make some research (ask uncle google) and then explain, how my model deals with this subject...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/04/2021 05:11:45
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/49986/what-are-the-consequences-of-relativistic-angular-velocities
There's also wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_angular_momentum
But I'm probably too stupid, to understand how the citation below solves my question:
Quote
Therefore, the components of angular momentum along the direction of motion do not change, while the components perpendicular do change. By contrast to the transformations of space and time, time and the spatial coordinates change along the direction of motion, while those perpendicular do not.It seems to deal with momentum, but not with the possible ftl velocity...
Then there are also couple papers, where similar scenario with a rotating disk is being discussed in terms of SRT:
"New Perspectives on the Relativistically Rotating Disk and Non-time-orthogonal Reference Frames"
The rotating disk problem is analyzed on the premise that proper interpretation of experimental evidence leads to the conclusion that the postulates upon which relativity theory is based, particularly the invariance of the speed of light, are not applicable to rotating frames. Different postulates based on the Sagnac experiment are proposed, and from these postulates a new relativistic theory of rotating frames is developed following steps similar to those initially followed by Einstein for rectilinear motion. The resulting theory agrees with all experiments, resolves problems with the traditional approach to the rotating disk, and exhibits both traditionally relativistic and non-relativistic characteristics. Of particular note, no Lorentz contraction exists on the rotating disk circumference, and the disk surface, contrary to the assertions of Einstein and others, is found to be Riemann flat. The variable speed of light found in the Sagnac experiment is then shown to be characteristic of nontime-orthogonal reference frames, of which the rotating frame is one. In addition, the widely accepted postulate for the equivalence of inertial and non-inertial standard rods with zero relative velocity, used liberally in prior rotating disk analyses, is shown to be invalid for such frames. Further, the new theory stands alone in correctly predicting what was heretofore considered a â€spurious†non-null effect on the order of 10 −13 found by Brillet and Hall in the most accurate Michelson-Morley type test to date. The presentation is simple and pedagogic in order to make it accessible to the non-specialist.
I think, that this part is the most important one: "Of particular note, no Lorentz contraction exists on the rotating disk circumference, and the disk surface, contrary to the assertions of Einstein and others, is found to be Riemann flat."
Also here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_relativity_really_limit_the_radius_of_a_rotating_disk
where the given problem is being discussed in terms of GRT
Here's also something interesting: https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/rr/7016/
"The spokes in the wheel appear distorted in a way that makes them seem denser in one direction than the other."
Wouldn't that be consistent with the Doppler's effect (two-directional distortion of space-time) rather than with one-directional lenght contraction?
And this is in my opinion the best source I was able to find: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rotatingCoordinates.html
There are couple interesting fragments, but I would like to point out two of them:
In fact, this behaviour is no different to the well-accepted and well-understood behaviour of light in a uniformly accelerated frame, where the measured speed of light depends upon where in that frame it currently is. This speed can in fact have any value, from zero to infinity. (See the FAQ entry Do moving clocks always run slowly? for further discussion of this.) It's only in inertial frames that light's speed is postulated to have the value "c".
What seems to be suprisingly consistent with my model, where c is constant only in the inertial frame, while undergoing Galilean boost for moving frames...
"A construction of a rotating platform that treats its points the most "democratically" gives the same helical shape in spacetime to the world lines of all points that lie at equal radii from the centre of rotation. In that case, the circumference of any circle of radius r is then 2πr by construction. If you draw various planes of simultaneity at a selection of events on the circumference of such a circle, you'll find that these planes are inclined, and are themselves spinning around. The result is that observers stationed at each of those events—fixed to points on the platform—measure their neighbours to be farther away than would be the case if the platform were not spinning. Those neighbours are measured as pushed somewhat toward the opposite side of the circle from the viewpoint of each observer. Also, each observer measures that observers immediately to his "east" (by which I mean those situated in the direction of rotation) are older than himself, neighbours to his immediate "west" are younger than himself, and observers on the opposite side to him from the centre of rotation have the same age as himself. This all means that the observers at rest on the platform cannot agree on the simultaneity of events. They can never construct a time coordinate that has the real meaning of time in the way that it does in an inertial frame. And this means that those observers simply don't constitute a frame. So the phrase "relativistic rotating frame" is a contradiction in terms; no such frame can exist."
In shortcut, my conclusion is, that according to SRT, multiple observers placed in a line along the radius of a rotating disk, will experience different rates of time flow, with the fastest rate of aging process for observer in the center of rotation and with the slowest rate for observer located on the edge of rotating disc - all of this, while appearing as stationary in relation to each other. But maybe it's about observers placed in a circle at one distance from the center?
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5ymCrdg/rot.png)
So here we have another of those "wild" predictions in SRT... But anyway I couldn't find here any direct answers to my question - but maybe I missed it...
Post by: Halc on 17/04/2021 05:55:53
QM explains HOW observed processes take place, but it doesn't try to explain WHY they take placeNo, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.
Quote
In most of the cases, no one didn't even try to prove any inconsistency in my statetementsI showed several. Did you respond to it? No, you ignored it, and just charged ahead with further assertions. If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk.
Quote
Actually my theory makes couple strictly numerical predictions that can be tested in a laboratory - like the "width contraction", which I've explained in my previous post.And which I showed must lead to X is true and X is false. That’s a contradiction.
Quote
It's becuse I see too many logical inconsitencies in the SRTYou’ve demonstrated very little understanding of SRT, so I doubt you’ve managed to find an inconsistency with it. Misunderstandings don’t count.
Quote
Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory. You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right?Very hard to parse that. I understand a pair of particles (do they need to be protons? Can they be marbles?) that are stationary relative to each other but moving relative to the laboratory. Relative to the lab frame, they’re separated by say a meter. In the frame of the objects, the distance between them will be larger, not shorter. That would be their proper separation which is always greatest in the frame in which they are at rest.
There seems to be no acceleration involved in your scenario. If there is, you need to be precise about where it fits in, how things are accelerated, and when.
Quote
Sorry for not being specific enough. What I had in mind, is a scenario with two identical pairs of protons with one pair being accelerated and where each proton in a moving pair is passing next to a proton from stationary pair simultaneously.OK, the scenario changes now. Relative to the lab frame, all four (not two) objects are at rest. Two of them are simultaneously accelerated with identical proper acceleration. They will remain a meter apart then in the lab frame, but will grow further apart in the new frame relative to which they eventually come to rest. If the acceleration starts at different times (relative to the lab) or one has more proper acceleration than the other, then their separation will not be as I described it.
Why, does your model predict something else?
Quote
According to SRT simultaneity will be lost since distance between protons will get shorter - am I right?SRT has no concept of ‘simultaneity being lost’. Both objects represent worldlines and for every event on one worldline, there is an event on the other worldline that is simultaneous with it. This is true in any frame. So no, you are not right. You seem to have only a minimal understanding of SRT.
That's true. This is all because this software doesn't represent SRT and photons in moving light clocks exceed the speed of light.So the speed of light isn’t actually the speed of light?? Light clocks use special photons different from normal ones?
I have an idea for a contest between my model and the SRT. Let's see how both models deal with angular velocity and the hypothetical ftl motion that comes from it. What in SRT makes the difference between those 3 relative velocities from the image below?Not happening. The end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.
Let's discuss a scenario in which we use a veeeeeryy long stick to accelerate an object mounted to one end of that stick to the speed of c and beyond
If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.
Quote
using the property of angular motion (velocity grows together with the distance to center of rotation).This part is fine. Yes, v at any point is directly proportional to radius, which is presumed fixed (the rod doesn’t stretch with tension).
Quote
If I'm correct SRT will try to deal with this problem using the lenght contraction on angular motion to prevent the frame on the end of stick to reach the speed of light or exceed it - is this true?Again, you are incorrect. The length of the stick will not contract because it isn’t moving in that direction. The thickness will contract, but that doesn’t effect the length of the stick or the speed at which the end is going.
Quote
If so, we'll end up with a serious problem - number of full rotations around the central point won't be the same for the object at the far end of stick as for someone who's placed much closer to the center of rotation. How SRT deals with that problem?Relative to say the inertial frame of the axis, the stick is always straight and thus moving everywhere at the same angular rate (rads/sec).
The rod will be curved relative to inertial frames in which the axis is moving. There are web sites showing this.
Quote
In shortcut, my conclusion is, that according to SRT, multiple observers placed in a line along the radius of a rotating disk, will experience different rates of time flow, with the fastest rate of aging process for observer in the center of rotation and with the slowest rate for observer located on the edge of rotating discYes. But you didn’t ask that above.
Quote
all of this, while appearing as stationary in relation to each other.No, the others will appear to be going around you. They’ll only appear stationary relative to the rotating frame of the spinning thing, but not relative to any inertial frame.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/04/2021 07:23:15
No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.
Ok - I agree. However none of this doesn't have any practical significance for my model
Quote
In most of the cases, no one didn't even try to prove any inconsistency in my statetements
I showed several.QuoteDid you respond to it? No, you ignored it, and just charged ahead with further assertions. If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk.
First of all I was speaking there about other forums on the internet. Second of all, I've tried to response to all your comments. This appears to be your last objection
Quote
"Galilean relativity treats any event as being the same event in all frames, it doesn't postulate 2 different events. So your starting point is not Galilean Relativity.
To which I've already responded. In your latest comment you were also pointing out that photons in light clocks are exceeding constant c - and I explained that this is exacly what is being solved in my model by the "width contraction"
If I missed any of your posts,then please let me know which one it was.
Quote
Very hard to parse that. I understand a pair of particles (do they need to be protons? Can they be marbles?) that are stationary relative to each other but moving relative to the laboratory. Relative to the lab frame, they’re separated by say a meter. In the frame of the objects, the distance between them will be larger, not shorter. That would be their proper separation which is always greatest in the frame in which they are at rest.No, they don't have to be protons. And yes - that's exactly what I ment - thanks for clarifying things out
There seems to be no acceleration involved in your scenario. If there is, you need to be precise about where it fits in, how things are accelerated, and when.
Quote
OK, the scenario changes now. Relative to the lab frame, all four (not two) objects are at rest. Two of them are simultaneously accelerated with identical proper acceleration. They will remain a meter apart then in the lab frame, but will grow further apart in the new frame relative to which they eventually come to rest. If the acceleration starts at different times (relative to the lab) or one has more proper acceleration than the other, then their separation will not be as I described it.
Why, does your model predict something else?
Ok, so here are the diagrams that show the predictions of SRT as for my cenario - distance between particles in each pair is equal to 2su in their inertial frames, but it's contracted for a pair in motion:
(https://i.postimg.cc/dQd18W0G/lenght2.png)(https://i.postimg.cc/d38Vw0f5/lenght1.png)
My model is based on Galilean transformation and predict such results:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgZy9TZF/gali1.png)(https://i.postimg.cc/SxKktVmT/gali2.png)
And since this experiment wasn't yet conducted, assuming the correctness of prefered result is kinda unscientific approach
Quote
SRT has no concept of ‘simultaneity being lost’. Both objects represent worldlines and for every event on one worldline, there is an event on the other worldline that is simultaneous with it. This is true in any frame. So no, you are not right. You seem to have only a minimal understanding of SRT.Maybe once again I wasn't able to correctly articulate my thoughts. Here are the diagrams according to SRT, after we synchronize distance and simultaneity with one frame:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxKktVmT/gali2.png)(https://i.postimg.cc/BQrBm75s/gali2lorentz.png)
Synchronization is lost in second frame due to Lorentz transformationQuote
I don't understand your question. Green marbles in my animations give invalid results - I solve the problem by applying the width contraction due to Doppler shiftQuoteThat's true. This is all because this software doesn't represent SRT and photons in moving light clocks exceed the speed of light.So the speed of light isn’t actually the speed of light?? Light clocks use special photons different from normal ones?
Quote
Not happening. The end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.Woow! calm down. We're speaking here about relative velocities of frames in SRT, while you jump to GRT. Let's for now forget completely about any mass of objects
If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.
Quote
Again, you are incorrect. The length of the stick will not contract because it isn’t moving in that direction. The thickness will contract, but that doesn’t effect the length of the stick or the speed at which the end is going.I didn't intend to say such things. What is supposedly contracted is the lenght of circumference.
Quote
Relative to say the inertial frame of the axis, the stick is always straight and thus moving everywhere at the same angular rate (rads/sec).sorry, but I couldn't find such ones. Anyway wouldn't that curve the rod into a spiral if we'll keep to extend the rod and number of rotations will become couple times higher in the center than on the distant end of rod?
The rod will be curved relative to inertial frames in which the axis is moving. There are web sites showing this.
Quote
No, the others will appear to be going around you. They’ll only appear stationary relative to the rotating frame of the spinning thing, but not relative to any inertial frame.So they'll appear as moving around me despite having the same angular velocity as I do? SRT can't stop to surprise me... And the best thing is, that all of you treat it as obvious without having any actual measurement of such process in real-life...
Shouldn't it mean, that someone who lives close to a geographical pole has measurably shorter life in comparisment to someone, who lives on the equator? Hmm I have to check it...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/04/2021 07:49:06
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Dopplereffectsourcemovingrightatmach1.4.gif)
In shortcut, constant velocity of c is maintained in every inertial frame, while the proper order of events appears to be inverted for frames which move at relative ftl velocities. All of this is a completely relataivistic effect, which have no effect on timeline as it is observed in any inertial frame.And just so happens, that in the difference to the crazy predictions of SRT, my claims have at least some minimal experimental evidence:
https://www.livescience.com/54467-light-trick-proves-time-reversal.html
https://www.iflscience.com/physics/images-goes-backwards-faster-light-experiment/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/jul/20/technology2
Can someone tell me what about those experiments can we learn from SRT?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/04/2021 09:37:13
Post by: Halc on 17/04/2021 21:19:07
You didn’t bring it up in context of your model. You brought it up as evidence against STR, which, for the reason you agreed with, it is not.No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.Ok - I agree. However none of this doesn't have any practical significance for my model
Quote
And yet you still don’t respond to my demonstrations of self inconsistency in your assertions.QuoteDid you respond to it? No … If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunkI've tried to response to all your comments. This appears to be your last objection
Quote
In your latest comment you were also pointing out that photons in light clocks are exceeding constant cI said that one of your animations (the one labeled “3. T-cutâ€) depicts photons (green balls) moving at different speeds, which violates your premise that they do not. The animation does not depict STR physics. So your animation is inconsistent with both STR and your premises. The animation is thus fiction. Not sure why you posted the whole set if it doesn't correspond to anything either of our views.
Quote
If I missed any of your posts,then please let me know which one it was.The one about the rings passing through each other or not, bottom of post 90. That was a direct consequence of the width-contraction that you assert, and violates the principle of relativity.
Quote
Ok, so here are the diagrams that show the predictions of SRT as for my cenario - distance between particles in each pair is equal to 2su in their inertial frames, but it's contracted for a pair in motionThe new scenario seems to have a set of ‘stationary’ objects and a pair of moving ones, with no acceleration involved. That’s fine. You show the same set of events relative to two different frames. It looks OK.
Quote
My model is based on Galilean transformation and predict such results:The second set is your model, and it seems completely inconstent with the principle of relativity and with frame-invariant light speed. A light pulse emitted from the left red object at t=0 will be measured by the other red object at t=4 in the upper picture, but at t=2 in the lower picture. That’s a self inconsistency. It can in fact only be measured at one time by the other object.
This is what I mean when I say you’ve not worked out the mathematics. There are inconsistencies that I spot immediately, but you don’t even try to look for them.
Quote
And since this experiment wasn't yet conducted, assuming the correctness of prefered result is kinda unscientific approachThere’s no need to run the experiment since it contradicts itself, and an empirical falsification is unnecessary.
Quote
Maybe once again I wasn't able to correctly articulate my thoughts. Here are the diagrams according to SRT, after we synchronize distance and simultaneity with one frameThis illustrates relativity of simultaneity, yes. Clocks synced relative to one frame may not be synced relative to another.
Synchronization is lost in second frame due to Lorentz transformation
Quote
I don't understand your question. Green marbles in my animations give invalid results - I solve the problem by applying the width contraction due to Doppler shiftThat’s fine, but I showed how width contraction violates the principle of relativity. It results in X is true and X is false, a self-contradiction. You never responded to that, bottom of post 90.
Concerning the rotating stick:
Quote
Did I? No mention of gravity ever came up. This is straight special relativity.Quote from: HalcThe end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.Woow! calm down. We're speaking here about relative velocities of frames in SRT, while you jump to GRT.
If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.
Quote
I didn't intend to say such things. What is supposedly contracted is the lenght of circumference.The circumference doesn’t contract since it isn’t an object moving, but rather a path through space taken by the moving object. The radius remains the same, therefore so does the circumference.
Quote
Anyway wouldn't that curve the rod into a spiral if we'll keep to extend the rod and number of rotations will become couple times higher in the center than on the distant end of rod?No, the angular rate is the same for any part of the object relative to any frame, so no spiral. So relative to the inertial frame of the axis, the entire thing spins at 100 rads/sec, and relative to the accelerating frame of somebody at the end of the thing, it the entire thing might spin at 300 rads/sec, but nobody sees one part spinning faster than another.
Quote
So they'll appear as moving around me despite having the same angular velocity as I do? SRT can't stop to surprise meThat has nothing to do with SRT.
The ground and I seem to spin around each other once per day. This is evidenced by the fact that half the time I’m on the side facing the sun, and the other half the ground is between me and the sun, blocking the light. You might choose to interpret this as the sun going around Earth as they did before Copernicus came along, but we’ve since learned that it is due to the Earth spinning. Copernicus knew nothing about STR, but are you reverting science back that far now?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 18/04/2021 05:36:26
You didn’t bring it up in context of your model. You brought it up as evidence against STR, which, for the reason you agreed with, it is not.No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.Ok - I agree. However none of this doesn't have any practical significance for my model
In fact I still didn't go that far with my explanations, but generally I designed my model to handle both deterministic and probabilistic descriptions of each scenario - but I'll come to this later
Quote
QuoteAnd yet you still don’t respond to my demonstrations of self inconsistency in your assertions.QuoteDid you respond to it? No … If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunkI've tried to response to all your comments. This appears to be your last objection
Sorry, but I'm too stupid to guess, which particular assertion you're talking about. Please give me a citation and I will respond to it as soon as I can
Quote
QuoteIn your latest comment you were also pointing out that photons in light clocks are exceeding constant cI said that one of your animations (the one labeled “3. T-cutâ€) depicts photons (green balls) moving at different speeds, which violates your premise that they do not. The animation does not depict STR physics. So your animation is inconsistent with both STR and your premises. The animation is thus fiction. Not sure why you posted the whole set if it doesn't correspond to anything either of our views.
And I gave you already the explanation - green marbles show INVALID results. Only after I applied the width contraction, results become valid. Valid result is represented as WHITE marble on the image and animation below:
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1mgjDpW/a1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m284HCPw/clock.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m284HCPw/clock.gif)
I hope this will clarify all misunderstandings...
Quote
Got it...QuoteIf I missed any of your posts,then please let me know which one it was.The one about the rings passing through each other or not, bottom of post 90. That was a direct consequence of the width-contraction that you assert, and violates the principle of relativity.
Quote
Your 'width contraction' suggestion isn't symmetrical. If I have two identical rings moving towards each other quickly along their mutual axis, in the frame of a given ring, the one ring will be stationary and the other ring will be contracted due to the high speed. The moving one will fit through that stationary one without hitting it. Relative to the frame of the second ring, the first ring will pass through the second. Relative to the frame of the center of mass of the system, the two rings are contracted identically and will collide. That's a different physical result in each of the three abstract reference frames, which violates the principle of relativity. Only one of these scenarios can actually happen, so the laws of physics are different in one frame than in another.
This would be true, if effects like the width contraction would cause definitive distortions of time and space, just like lenght contraction or time dilation do in SRT. However all the effects of relative motion in my model are completely apparent. Relative motion is here in 100% relative and doesn't affect any properties of any inertial frame. Effects of high velocity differential that are visible on images below, don't have any definitive impact on spatial lenght or width in the moving frame:
All spatial distances and angles remain always the same in the inertial frame of world, which exists beyond moving train. Objective reality of inertia doesn't care, if someone is moving in relation to it and perceives distorted image of things that don't move together with him
(https://i.postimg.cc/J7SkJB7y/bandicam-2018-12-27-22-38-07-657.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Th8fwx6w/bandicam-2018-12-27-22-42-01-459.jpg)
Letters on the side of moving train will have their proper height in the inertial frame of moving train and if that train will ever stop to move, proper height will be recovered as well in the inertial frame of a stationary bystander
(https://i.postimg.cc/HxRVQfmG/bandicam-2018-12-26-18-00-56-363.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/J7SkJB7y/bandicam-2018-12-27-22-38-07-657.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Th8fwx6w/bandicam-2018-12-27-22-42-01-459.jpg)
Letters on the side of moving train will have their proper height in the inertial frame of moving train and if that train will ever stop to move, proper height will be recovered as well in the inertial frame of a stationary bystander
(https://i.postimg.cc/HxRVQfmG/bandicam-2018-12-26-18-00-56-363.jpg)
Quote
Yes - I pasted this diagram, to show you, that acording to SRT simultaneity IS being lost for frames in relative motion. Scenario that included acceleration was represented on previous diagrams.QuoteOk, so here are the diagrams that show the predictions of SRT as for my cenario - distance between particles in each pair is equal to 2su in their inertial frames, but it's contracted for a pair in motionThe new scenario seems to have a set of ‘stationary’ objects and a pair of moving ones, with no acceleration involved. That’s fine. You show the same set of events relative to two different frames. It looks OK.
Quote
Sure - I didn't apply there the proper transformation of coordinates. I'll do it soon,to show you how my model deals with that scenarioQuoteMy model is based on Galilean transformation and predict such results:The second set is your model, and it seems completely inconstent with the principle of relativity and with frame-invariant light speed. A light pulse emitted from the left red object at t=0 will be measured by the other red object at t=4 in the upper picture, but at t=2 in the lower picture. That’s a self inconsistency. It can in fact only be measured at one time by the other object.
This is what I mean when I say you’ve not worked out the mathematics. There are inconsistencies that I spot immediately, but you don’t even try to look for them.
Quote
QuoteAnd since this experiment wasn't yet conducted, assuming the correctness of prefered result is kinda unscientific approachThere’s no need to run the experiment since it contradicts itself, and an empirical falsification is unnecessary.
Why do you jump to conclusions before I'll response to your objections?
Quote
QuoteMaybe once again I wasn't able to correctly articulate my thoughts. Here are the diagrams according to SRT, after we synchronize distance and simultaneity with one frameThis illustrates relativity of simultaneity, yes. Clocks synced relative to one frame may not be synced relative to another.
Synchronization is lost in second frame due to Lorentz transformationQuoteI don't understand your question. Green marbles in my animations give invalid results - I solve the problem by applying the width contraction due to Doppler shiftThat’s fine, but I showed how width contraction violates the principle of relativity. It results in X is true and X is false, a self-contradiction. You never responded to that, bottom of post 90.
I did now. It seems that your conclusions are based on misunderstanding - green marbles give invalid results and valid results are marked by marbles with different colors (e.g. white marble for the blue sphere)
Quote
Concerning the rotating stick:well, there's the increase of mass, so I thought about the mass/energy equivalence - my bad. Anyway, my point is, to ignore the mass for now, as this particular thread is supposed to deal mostly with relative velocities and constant c. To discuss mass in relative motion, I would have to create another thread.QuoteDid I? No mention of gravity ever came up. This is straight special relativity.Quote from: HalcThe end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.Woow! calm down. We're speaking here about relative velocities of frames in SRT, while you jump to GRT.
If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.
Quote
But what if that path is distributed along the circumference?QuoteI didn't intend to say such things. What is supposedly contracted is the lenght of circumference.The circumference doesn’t contract since it isn’t an object moving, but rather a path through space taken by the moving object. The radius remains the same, therefore so does the circumference.
Quote
I think, that the best for our general understanding, if I will depict such scenario with my 3D software and then we'll be able to discuss the detailsQuoteAnyway wouldn't that curve the rod into a spiral if we'll keep to extend the rod and number of rotations will become couple times higher in the center than on the distant end of rod?No, the angular rate is the same for any part of the object relative to any frame, so no spiral. So relative to the inertial frame of the axis, the entire thing spins at 100 rads/sec, and relative to the accelerating frame of somebody at the end of the thing, it the entire thing might spin at 300 rads/sec, but nobody sees one part spinning faster than another.QuoteSo they'll appear as moving around me despite having the same angular velocity as I do? SRT can't stop to surprise meThat has nothing to do with SRT.
The ground and I seem to spin around each other once per day. This is evidenced by the fact that half the time I’m on the side facing the sun, and the other half the ground is between me and the sun, blocking the light. You might choose to interpret this as the sun going around Earth as they did before Copernicus came along, but we’ve since learned that it is due to the Earth spinning. Copernicus knew nothing about STR, but are you reverting science back that far now?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 18/04/2021 10:37:48
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YZXmWpC/gal1a.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/QxYmPq3f/gal2a.jpg)
There are 2 main aspects of this scenario, which make it so interesting:
- simultaneity of emissions at t=0 is here synchronized with the time at which 2 objects from each pair are crossing one point in 1D space (in x=2)
- both frames share the same spatial coordinates for one of the simultaneous emissions at t=0, which is also the same point, where at t=0 two objects from each frame, meet in 1D space (x=2)
Because of this, timeline of this scenario includes a cardinal event at t=4, with a double synchronization of simultaneity - light emitted at t=0 is reaching both pairs of objects right at the time, when they are simultaneously passing next to each other
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqHqjqN0/gal1az.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/TY1hkVQ2/gal2aa1.jpg)
Moreover - if we treat both pairs as moving light clocks, that are synchonized with the "shared" light emission (t=0,x=2), both of them suppose to record exactly 2 ticks since the moment of initial emission (t=0) until the cardinal event at t=4. But just as you noticed in your previous comment, light clocks in moving frames seem to count just one tick in the same time interval, in which light clock in the inertial frame of each pair, counts 2 ticks. Shorly, light emitted by one object in a moving pair, is reaching it's copy at t=2 in the inertial frame of stationary pair, but seems to reach second moving object in it's own pair at t=4 - and because my model maintains symmetry of relative motion for both pairs of objects, such situation is visible in both inertial frames.
My solution is exactly the same, as in all previous cases - to represent more than one inertial frame on a single diagram, light cones of moving light sources have to be boosted accordingly to their relative velocity:
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0XDhLqy/gal1a1.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/RFQTF804/gal2a1d.jpg)
Below you can see the valid results, which are being predicted by my model of constant c in relative motion:
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0rS4jMY/fixed1.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/13n2tm1S/fix2a.jpg)
And just like before, constant c is still fully maintained in every case of two-directional motion. But what makes those results so interesting, is the strange fact, that light emitted at t=0 from a single point of emission, seems to reach the second object from each pair in both inertial frames simultaneously at t=2 - despite the fact, that at this time, both pairs are displaced in space by 1su..
How can it be possible? Quite simply - in my model, constant velocity of c is being maintained, because in every case of light emission, photons are always propagating individually for each observer in his inertial frame. Shortly, photon observed in the inertial frame of one pair of objects, is a different photon, from the one which is being observed in the inertial frame of second pair - even if both of those photons were emitted during the same light emission. And because constant c is immeasurable in one-directional motion, both photons can be observed simultaneously in respective inertial frames of both pairs...
Post by: Origin on 18/04/2021 14:52:41
So you assumed, that I didn't finish primary school?I didn't ask for the Galilean transforms, I asked for your transforms.
If in an inertial frame vt is the sum of 2 relative velocities v1 and v2 then:
vt=v1+v2 for relative motion in opposite directions
vt=v1-v2 for relative motion in the same direction
And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
I just can't see any way for sensical transforms to by written for your relativity. I will show you one of my issues with your relativity by using the Einstein light clock.
The light clock consist of a photon or light pulse bouncing between 2 mirrors on the vertical axis. The clock ticks off 1 second each time a light pulse moves from a lower mirror to the upper mirror and back down to the lower mirror. If light clock is moving then the light pulse will trace out a saw tooth pattern to an observer in a frame at rest. Here is a graphic showing this:
(https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/books/978-1-6270-5497-3/live/bk978-1-6270-5497-3ch2f1_online.jpg)
Let's look at 3 relatvities
1. Galilean relativity
2. Special relativity
3. Your relativity
1. Galilean transforms allow the direct addition of velocities between reference frames. The passage of time in the light clocks frame (t') moving frame is the same as the passage of time in the rest frame (t). In other words t' = t.
So in the light clocks frame it takes 1 second for the light to travel 3 x 10^8 m. In the rest frame the light pulse traces out a longer path but the light pulse must still only take 1 second to return to the bottom mirror since t' = t. The transforms show that it takes 1 second in each frame for the light pulse to move from the lower mirror to the upper and back to the lower because the speed of light in the rest frame is measured as >3 x 10^8 m/s.
2. In special relativity the speed of light is invariant so in every inertial frame the speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/sec. That means that in the rest frame, since the path of the light is longer than in the clocks frame, the light pulse will not reach the bottom mirror. That's a problem because how can the light pulse in one frame reach the bottom mirror but in the other frame it doesn't? The solution is that t' does not equal t. The transforms for switching between reference frames for time is
3. In your relativity the speed of light is invariant and t' = t. This means that after 1 second in the moving clocks frame the light pulse will have reached the bottom mirror and it the rest frame the the light pulse will not have reached the bottom mirror. How can the frames disagree on the distance traveled but agree that 1 second has passed? What are the transforms that make that possible?
There are lots of other issues with you idea. A hypothesis can not be proven but it can be falsified. In other words evidence and experiments can support your idea but not prove it, on the other hand an experiment can falsify your idea if the experimental results are counter to your idea.
Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however experimentation shows that time dilation is a real effect. This means your hypotheses has been falsified.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 18/04/2021 23:20:13
I don't have any kind of "my own" transformation - I'm using ONLY Galilean formulas and nothing else. Should I make my own equation with some other velocity addition? Sorry, I can't do that, since it wouldn't be then consistent with my own simulationsSo you assumed, that I didn't finish primary school?I didn't ask for the Galilean transforms, I asked for your transforms.
If in an inertial frame vt is the sum of 2 relative velocities v1 and v2 then:
vt=v1+v2 for relative motion in opposite directions
vt=v1-v2 for relative motion in the same direction
And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
Quote
Galilean transformation is quite sensical in my opinio - all you do, is to add or subtract distances passed by 2 moving objects - this is why I'm capable to switch between cameras attached to moving frames and see the inertia of each object instantly.
I just can't see any way for sensical transforms to by written for your relativity.
Quote
I will show you one of my issues with your relativity by using the Einstein light clock.
The light clock consist of a photon or light pulse bouncing between 2 mirrors on the vertical axis. The clock ticks off 1 second each time a light pulse moves from a lower mirror to the upper mirror and back down to the lower mirror. If light clock is moving then the light pulse will trace out a saw tooth pattern to an observer in a frame at rest. Here is a graphic showing this:
(https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/books/978-1-6270-5497-3/live/bk978-1-6270-5497-3ch2f1_online.jpg)
Let's look at 3 relatvities
1. Galilean relativity
2. Special relativity
3. Your relativity
1. Galilean transforms allow the direct addition of velocities between reference frames. The passage of time in the light clocks frame (t') moving frame is the same as the passage of time in the rest frame (t). In other words t' = t.
So in the light clocks frame it takes 1 second for the light to travel 3 x 10^8 m. In the rest frame the light pulse traces out a longer path but the light pulse must still only take 1 second to return to the bottom mirror since t' = t. The transforms show that it takes 1 second in each frame for the light pulse to move from the lower mirror to the upper and back to the lower because the speed of light in the rest frame is measured as >3 x 10^8 m/s.
2. In special relativity the speed of light is invariant so in every inertial frame the speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/sec. That means that in the rest frame, since the path of the light is longer than in the clocks frame, the light pulse will not reach the bottom mirror. That's a problem because how can the light pulse in one frame reach the bottom mirror but in the other frame it doesn't? The solution is that t' does not equal t. The transforms for switching between reference frames for time is
3. In your relativity the speed of light is invariant and t' = t. This means that after 1 second in the moving clocks frame the light pulse will have reached the bottom mirror and it the rest frame the the light pulse will not have reached the bottom mirror. How can the frames disagree on the distance traveled but agree that 1 second has passed? What are the transforms that make that possible?
There are lots of other issues with you idea. A hypothesis can not be proven but it can be falsified. In other words evidence and experiments can support your idea but not prove it, on the other hand an experiment can falsify your idea if the experimental results are counter to your idea.
Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however experimentation shows that time dilation is a real effect. This means your hypotheses has been falsified.
This is how frames can disagree as for spatial distances observed in moving frames:
(https://i.postimg.cc/J7SkJB7y/bandicam-2018-12-27-22-38-07-657.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/Th8fwx6w/bandicam-2018-12-27-22-42-01-459.jpg)
I can bet that someone standing next to that railing wouldn't observe any effects from the second image...
And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion. Time dilation is a definitive effect and as such can be caused ONLY by a definitvie and characteristic property of a frame (so for example due to high concentration of mass)
Post by: Origin on 19/04/2021 02:34:29
I don't have any kind of "my own" transformation - I'm using ONLY Galilean formulas and nothing else.Then the speed of light isn't invariant in your relativity, the Galilean transforms say so.
Galilean transformation is quite sensical in my opinio - all you do, is to add or subtract distances passed by 2 moving objects - this is why I'm capable to switch between cameras attached to moving frames and see the inertia of each object instantly.Galilean relativity is easy to work with and it makes intuitive sense, unfortunately it is wrong. Galilean relativity postulates that t' = t. This has been experimentally shown to be false. Galilean relativity is not correct.
I can bet that someone standing next to that railing wouldn't observe any effects from the second image...I don't know what motion blur on a photograph has to do with the discussion.
And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion.Experimentation disagrees with what you imagine. Look, you have to go with the data, not what you want to be true.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 19/04/2021 05:14:29
It is invariant for every inertial frame, but it's covariant for a frame in relative motion - didn't you noticed the boosted light cones on my diagrams?I don't have any kind of "my own" transformation - I'm using ONLY Galilean formulas and nothing else.Then the speed of light isn't invariant in your relativity, the Galilean transforms say so.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337285912_Galilean_relativity_and_the_Doppler_effect_are_a_single_phenomenon
But to be more specific, I think, that my concept of width contraction is based on the transverse Doppler's effect and is consistent with Ivanov standng waves, that utilize the Voigt transformations.
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/html/94.Doppler.html
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/websiteX/html/5%20The%20Doppler%20effect.htm
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/html/92.Ivanov.html
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysearch.org.uk%2Fwebsite3%2Fimages%2Fanimations%2F94.1.B0.5.gif&hash=2e41e1f6caf4526590172054996cfe14)(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysearch.org.uk%2Fwebsite3%2Fimages%2Fanimations%2F92.2.B0.5.gif&hash=ff1b22edc68a70b2aca63f83df03554d)
Quote
It doesn't predict time dilation due to relative velocity - and this is why I consider it as a valid model of relative motionGalilean transformation is quite sensical in my opinio - all you do, is to add or subtract distances passed by 2 moving objects - this is why I'm capable to switch between cameras attached to moving frames and see the inertia of each object instantly.Galilean relativity is easy to work with and it makes intuitive sense, unfortunately it is wrong. Galilean relativity postulates that t' = t. This has been experimentally shown to be false. Galilean relativity is not correct.
Quote
spatial distances are visibly contracted in the directon perpendicular to motion. Besides the general idea, that moving frames appear distorted due to high relative velocity isn't anything new or controversial. I would consider it as a well known factI can bet that someone standing next to that railing wouldn't observe any effects from the second image...I don't know what motion blur on a photograph has to do with the discussion.
Quote
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/687.LightClock.htmlAnd one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion.Experimentation disagrees with what you imagine. Look, you have to go with the data, not what you want to be true.
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/3/3/2/index.html
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01097004v3/document
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/uh-ithpii-2003-1.pdf
https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Time-Was-Never-the-4th-Dimension-196801.shtml
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijtmp.20190903.03.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein
I can give you much more. Time dilation due to relative velcity iss being generally acepted by the majority, but it doesn't make it fully verified. The general premise of a definitive effect due to relative motion, is in itself logically inconsitent
Post by: CrazyScientist on 19/04/2021 06:44:33
http://www.mrelativity.net/LightSpeedEffect/The%20Light%20Speed%20Effect.htm
http://www.mrelativity.net/MRelativity/MillenniumTheory5.htm
http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/SR_Transverse_Doppler_Explained.htm
http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Transverse_Doppler_Simplified_2.htm
What is pretty close to my model. The main difference is here probably the fact, that their model seems to incorporate time dilation, where I use the width contraction. For some reason SRT doesn't make the difference between spatial and temporal dimensions and treats axis of time, just like I treat perpendicular dimension Y.
There's also this:
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-384421/v1_stamped.pdf
(https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-384421/v1/7e49759fae43ae700f534ae2.png?maxDims=1200x1200)(https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-384421/v1/6eb0e4ca5984a15937b2dc23.png?maxDims=1200x1200)(https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-384421/v1/be9c2cc23650e4cfdbc192ee.png?maxDims=1200x1200)
And all of this seems to be quite consistend with my model of gravitational fields in relative motion:
(https://i.ibb.co/NYbscsQ/dh.gif)
And all of this seems to be quite consistend with my model of gravitational fields in relative motion:
(https://i.ibb.co/NYbscsQ/dh.gif)
Soon I will probably make a second thread, to discuss the details of my model of gravity (or rather "gravitomagnetohydrodynamics"). And then it will be the time for me to introduce you to the actual 4th dimension of space and explain the corelation between fractal scale and the frequency rate of time flow.in frames with a size differential. And then of course I will have to incorporate my gravity model the 5D framework - and voilla:you'll get at last your mystical "quantum gravity"...
Post by: Halc on 19/04/2021 13:34:07
It doesn't predict time dilation due to relative velocity - and this is why I consider it as a valid model of relative motionStrange that this came up in today's non-sequitur:
...
And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.amuniversal.com%2Fc894d3f07eab013957bb005056a9545d&hash=e220d827c9e213b434189fa9fb52d60e)
Quote
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/687.LightClock.html"If I were wrong, it would only take one." - Einstein
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/3/3/2/index.html
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01097004v3/document
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/uh-ithpii-2003-1.pdf
https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Time-Was-Never-the-4th-Dimension-196801.shtml
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijtmp.20190903.03.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein
I can give you much more.
Post by: Origin on 19/04/2021 14:01:47
Time dilation due to relative velcity iss being generally acepted by the majority, but it doesn't make it fully verified.That's absurd. Special relativity is taught in every college in the world and has been for almost 100 years. So when you say it is 'generally accepted' and 'doesn't make it fully verified', that smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
This is a science forum, so let me state yet again a basic tenet of science. A hypothesis cannot be proven, experimentation can support a hypothesis but not prove it. However a hypothesis can falsified if the experimentation result are counter to the hypothesis. Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however time dilation has been experimentally verified over and over. This means your hypothesis has been falsified.
Quote
Maybe not for you or couple members of this forum. But if you'd see, what happened on other forums, you wouldn't be so sure anymore - mostly there was a pure hatred directed towards my person.I strongly suggest that it was not hatred of you or your hypothesis, it was just frustration with your bad faith arguments and your willful ignorance.
Post by: Origin on 19/04/2021 14:14:01
Soon I will probably make a second thread, to discuss the details of my model of gravity (or rather "gravitomagnetohydrodynamics").Since your hypothesis presented in this thread has been falsified it does seem to be time to move on.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 19/04/2021 19:48:54
I can use my model, that describes time as frequency rate of a cycle to give you my own mathematically valid interpretations of those results.Time dilation due to relative velcity iss being generally acepted by the majority, but it doesn't make it fully verified.That's absurd. Special relativity is taught in every college in the world and has been for almost 100 years. So wen you say it is 'generally accepted' and 'doesn't make it fully verified', that smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
Quote
This is a science forum, so let me state yet again a basic tenet of science. A hypothesis cannot be proven, experimentation can support a hypothesis but not prove it. However a hypothesis can falsified if the experimentation result are counter to the hypothesis. Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however time dilation has been experimentally verified over and over. This means your hypothesis has been falsified.Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculation
Quote
Blah blah blahQuoteMaybe not for you or couple members of this forum. But if you'd see, what happened on other forums, you wouldn't be so sure anymore - mostly there was a pure hatred directed towards my person.I strongly suggest that it was not hatred of you or your hypothesis, it was just frustration with your bad faith arguments and your willful ignorance.
Post by: Origin on 19/04/2021 22:41:39
Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculationExperimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/04/2021 21:09:27
Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculationExperimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.
Not really:
The Relativistic Velocity Transformation and the Principle of Absolute Simultaneity
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf
"No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same. IV.No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same."
Post by: Origin on 22/04/2021 12:21:14
Sorry, but an arm waving crank talking about about 'absolute simultaneity' is not good evidence for your idea. You do realize that time dilation was to be taken into account in the timing for the GPS system, don't you? Every time you use something like Google maps for driving directions you are demonstrating support for time dilation and refuting your relativity.Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculationExperimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.
Not really:
The Relativistic Velocity Transformation and the Principle of Absolute Simultaneity
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf
"No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same. IV.No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same."
This is from the paper you cited, "Since it is well established experimentally that the rate of clocks vary with their state of motion", in other words time dilation. Even this crank paper accepts time dilation, which refutes your hypothesis.
Denying time dilation requires you to pretend the experimental evidence supporting time dilation doesn't exist.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 23/04/2021 23:57:48
Sorry, but an arm waving crank talking about about 'absolute simultaneity' is not good evidence for your idea. You do realize that time dilation was to be taken into account in the timing for the GPS system, don't you? Every time you use something like Google maps for driving directions you are demonstrating support for time dilation and refuting your relativity.Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculationExperimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.
Not really:
The Relativistic Velocity Transformation and the Principle of Absolute Simultaneity
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf
"No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same. IV.No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same."
This is from the paper you cited, "Since it is well established experimentally that the rate of clocks vary with their state of motion", in other words time dilation. Even this crank paper accepts time dilation, which refutes your hypothesis.
Denying time dilation requires you to pretend the experimental evidence supporting time dilation doesn't exist.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309004071_Contradiction_between_FitzGerald-Lorentz_Length_Contraction_and_Time_Dilation_A_GPS-Compatible_Lorentz_Transformation
Contradiction between FitzGerald-Lorentz Length Contraction and Time Dilation: A GPS-Compatible Lorentz Transformation
Recent work has shown that the underlying assumptions of the Global Positioning System (GPS) are incompatible with a number of conclusions of conventional relativity theory, including Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction (FLC) and the supposed ambiguity in the relative rates of clocks in motion. The challenge is therefore to amend relativity theory so as to bring it into full consistency with the experience of the GPS methodology. This goal must be accomplished while at the same time avoiding conflict with other predictions of relativity theory that have received ample experimental confirmation over the years. It is shown that this can be achieved by eliminating an undeclared assumption in Einstein’s derivation of the Lorentz transformation (LT) and replacing it with the GPS axiom of the strict proportionality of clock rates in different rest frames. The standard relativistic velocity transformation still retains its validity thereby. However, the relationships between respective measured values of observers in relative motion for the same quantity are determined in the revised theory with the aid of a simple scaling procedure in each case
I can give you more examples, if you want. Obviously the idea of time dilation due to relative velocity is still a subject of serious discussion among physicists.
Besides, as I said before, I have as well my own explanation of this phenomenon, which is based on the simple fact, that in the difference to linear velocity, angular motion has a specific and definitive frequency of revolutions:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fimgmec%2Favel.gif&hash=df6e1b5c40f805dd3ff10c3102d321d3)
In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles. Our clocks are synchronized with the frequency of Earth's rotation. And as you can probably guess, the lower is the frequency of this cycle, the slower is the time flow in a particular frame. If you distribute a specific number of cycles over the globe along different latitudes, you'll see that the cycle, which is distributed along the equator has the highest wavelenght - since this is where surface of Earth is passing the longest distance during each rotation - but because the difference of surface velocities, frequency of 24h/day cycle remains the same over the entire planet. Of course, the same mechanism can be used for satellites, which are orbiting the Earth with their own specific frequency of orbital cycles.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 24/04/2021 03:07:38
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvrpVTm5/time.gif)
Of course, this won't work in the case of linear motion, since there's no definitive frequency associated with the distance, which is being passed by particular frames - here distances add to each other according to the standard formula of velocity addition:
Post by: CrazyScientist on 24/04/2021 10:01:42
Y-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/151jv19S/dilation1.gif)
X-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/MTj9YdNX/dilation2.gif)
t-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/vH8WY0h9/dilation4.gif)
3D
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMwHWDLK/dilation3.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/151jv19S/dilation1.gif)
X-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/MTj9YdNX/dilation2.gif)
t-cut
(https://i.postimg.cc/vH8WY0h9/dilation4.gif)
3D
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMwHWDLK/dilation3.gif)
As you might guess, in my model of relativity all 3 clocks will remain synchronized with each other as long, as their relative veocities won't change. However I wanted to see, what would happen, if we would move the clocks to different frames, after they were synchronized. Would they still count 4 cycles in 8tu or not? On the left side of the image below, I've compared the measurements of the clocks, after they were moved to a different frame (colors might be slightly misleading, but generally waveform with the greatest wavelenght is for the clock, that moves at 0,5c, while the shortest wavelenght is for the stationary clock)
(https://i.postimg.cc/25d6BD85/bandicam-2021-04-23-17-42-24-214.jpg)
And now the best part... I've compared those results with the ones, which are being predicted by SRT - and it seems that my model predicted results, which are in 100% consistent with the time dilation from SRT (I've used multiple stationary clocks - red lines - for a better frame of reference).
(https://i.postimg.cc/HLmWmh41/dilat1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cH4sgtbD/dilat2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/brZpLc8k/dilat3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cH4sgtbD/dilat2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/brZpLc8k/dilat3.jpg)
I don't know, if it's something extraordinary or if it's something rather obvious, but I was quite surprised by those predictions. It's almost like SRT without the lenght contraction... Interesting...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 24/04/2021 14:35:05
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvrpVTm5/time.gif)
In Einstin's SRT time is flowing at different rates only because the differences of relative velocities - the faster someone is moving in relation to someone else, the slower time flows for him. So, if we use once more the Earth's rotation as an example, we will be able to conclude, that time suppose to flow slower for people living near the equator, than for the people living in the polar regions - and this is exactly, what is being predicted by SRT.
But the question is: did someone ever measured the differences of time flow rates at different geographical latitudes?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126919/does-time-move-slower-at-the-equator
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_clocks_run_at_diffrenet_speeds_at_difrrent_latitudes_as_according_to_STR
https://www.quora.com/Does-time-run-slower-on-the-equator-than-at-the-poles
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7utll8/does_the_equator_experience_time_dilation/
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/12/04/when-einstein-was-wrong/
And this is where Einstein's model of constant c in relative motion is unable to give a valid answer without the help of General Relativity. According to official sources:
"Alex Harvey and Engelbert Schucking pointed out that Einstein made this error by failing to take into account an effect of general relativity positing that clocks more deeply embedded in a gravitational field would run slower. Clocks run slightly faster at the equator compared to the poles because the earth’s rotation produces a slight bulge at the equator. However, the earth is also rotating faster at the equator. These two effects compensate for each other exactly, causing clocks to actually run at the same rate in both locations."
There is a effect from things whizzing in circles because of the earth's rotation, and although it's quite small, of order 1.4E-11, it's well within the precision of modern atomic clocks.
Unfortunately you can't detect it by comparing a clock at the equator to a clock at one at the poles because there's an effect of exactly the same size but opposite sign due to the fact that the earth is distorted into an Oblate spheroid due to centrifugal force and the equator is 22 km further from the centre of the earth than the poles. That is, the poles are lower in the earth's gravitational potential and so are subject to Gravitational time dilation. (It's not a coincidence that this happens - in the frame rotating with the earth, centrifugal force is equivalent to gravity according to the Equivalence principle and has the same effect on clocks. And the earth, being only semi-solid, sloshes around until the combined effective gravitational+centrifugal potential is even over the surface.)
If we were to assume that spacetime is flat (and so use special relativity), we would, indeed, conclude that because points on the equator move faster than points nearer to the poles, there is a time dilation effect. So if twins are born on the north pole, one of them spends all his summers on the equator and the other stays at the north pole, when they reunite, the vacationing twin will be younger. Special relativity would predict a time dilation factor of about 1.2 x 10-12, which is tiny but still measurable, in principle. Over 50 years or so, this accumulates to a difference of about 2 ms.
However, spacetime is not flat and Earth is not spherical. The effective gravitational potential at the poles is less than the potential at the equator. So there is another time dilation effect caused by the difference in gravity. And this effect would tend to do the opposite of the special relativistic effect: the twin at the north pole would be younger. Now keep in mind that we can measure the difference in time between two atomic clocks, one on the surface of Earth and another just less than 1 meter above it. The polar and equatorial radii differ by about 20 km, which is 20,000 times larger than 1 meter. Surely this means we are doomed to never be able to synchronize clocks across the globe.
So to fully solve the problem, we need to appeal to general relativity. Now it's not really possible to separate the two effects and say this much is due to the relative velocity and this much is due to gravity. It's just all part of the same metric. (In the case of weak gravity, however, we can make an approximate separation of the two effects, but this is only an approximation and it cannot be done in general.)
What's the punchline? The effects exactly cancel. That is, the time dilation factor is exactly 1 for all observers on the surface of Earth. (In fact, as this paper explains, it's possible to use atomic clocks synchronized in one point to map the geoid, as any difference in synchronization must have been due to a geoid anomaly, since all clocks on the geoid should be synchronized.)
Great! so my model of relativity DOES agree with the mainstream science, by predicting the constant synchronization of all clocks everywhere on Earth - only my explanation doesn't require additional values or theories, like the difference in the magnitude of gravity. But since we're at this subject, it might be a good idea to see, if the gravity is REALLY stronger at the equator, than at the poles, just as they say it is...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/30/article-1290808-0A43D619000005DC-240_634x348.jpg)
(https://scx1.b-cdn.net/csz/news/800a/2017/themissingma.jpg)
(https://scx1.b-cdn.net/csz/news/800a/2017/themissingma.jpg)
UH-OH! It seems, that although physicists are pretty good in repeating generally approved statements, they don't care too much about the ACTUAL state of affairs... So, in the end it appears, that my model of relativity visibly wins this battle...
Post by: Origin on 24/04/2021 15:49:10
I can give you more examples, if you want.No thanks, there is more than enough pseudoscience already.
Obviously the idea of time dilation due to relative velocity is still a subject of serious discussion among physicists.Obviously this statement is a lie. You know that every real university in the world teaches time dilation due to relative velocity. There is no disagreement to this except from loonies.
In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles.You don't have a model. You have a conjecture or a wag.
In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles. Our clocks are synchronized with the frequency of Earth's rotation. And as you can probably guess, the lower is the frequency of this cycle, the slower is the time flow in a particular frame. If you distribute a specific number of cycles over the globe along different latitudes, you'll see that the cycle, which is distributed along the equator has the highest wavelenght - since this is where surface of Earth is passing the longest distance during each rotation - but because the difference of surface velocities, frequency of 24h/day cycle remains the same over the entire planet. Of course, the same mechanism can be used for satellites, which are orbiting the Earth with their own specific frequency of orbital cycles.Why do insist on making up silly stuff instead of spending some time to learn actual physics?
Post by: Origin on 24/04/2021 16:04:58
So, in the end it appears, that my model of relativity visibly wins this battle..Especially when you ignore all of the problems with your idea that have been pointed out to you. Your willful ignorance knows no bounds.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 24/04/2021 16:53:09
I can give you more examples, if you want.No thanks, there is more than enough pseudoscience already.Obviously the idea of time dilation due to relative velocity is still a subject of serious discussion among physicists.Obviously this statement is a lie. You know that every real university in the world teaches time dilation due to relative velocity. There is no disagreement to this except from loonies.In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles.You don't have a model. You have a conjecture or a wag.In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles. Our clocks are synchronized with the frequency of Earth's rotation. And as you can probably guess, the lower is the frequency of this cycle, the slower is the time flow in a particular frame. If you distribute a specific number of cycles over the globe along different latitudes, you'll see that the cycle, which is distributed along the equator has the highest wavelenght - since this is where surface of Earth is passing the longest distance during each rotation - but because the difference of surface velocities, frequency of 24h/day cycle remains the same over the entire planet. Of course, the same mechanism can be used for satellites, which are orbiting the Earth with their own specific frequency of orbital cycles.Why do insist on making up silly stuff instead of spending some time to learn actual physics?
Quote
So, in the end it appears, that my model of relativity visibly wins this battle..
Especially when you ignore all of the problems with your idea that have been pointed out to you. Your willful ignorance knows no bounds.
You see, problem is that I've spoken before with couple actual physicists, so I have quite solid foundations as for my statements. I spoke as well with many people of your kind - those who try to compensate the lack of actual arguments with personal attacks. To be honest, I don't see any sense in our further discussion, since your input doesn't have any value to me anyway. Sadly those, who are obviously smarter than you, prefer to remain silent... I don't know, if you're educated in physics or not - nor do I care, since you seem unable to comprehend the most basic mechanics of my model.
I prefer to rely on opinions of people with actual scientific career - those, who you consider as loonies. Here's for example the author of that paper, which I've linked before in my response to you
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rj-Buenker
This loonie works in a belgian university and has 185 publications on his account - so I don't see no reason to not rely on his statements. And who exactly are you? How many peer-reviewed papers did you published? Well, that's why opinion of that loonie has 1000x more value to me, than your baseless comments. Why should I waste my time on searching for peer-reviewed sources, to back-up my claims, if you will dismiss them anyway, due to their inconsistency with your static worldview? Bye bye...
Post by: Origin on 24/04/2021 19:37:44
You see, problem is that I've spoken before with couple actual physicists, so I have quite solid foundations as for my statements.Talking to a couple of physicist does not give a solid foundation. I took physics courses from physics professors, big deal.
I spoke as well with many people of your kind - those who try to compensate the lack of actual arguments with personal attacks.We are not attacking you, we are attacking your idea. When you tell a lie, stating that fact is not an attack. Pointing out your willful ignorance is not an attack against you, it is just the way it is.
I prefer to rely on opinions of people with actual scientific career - those, who you consider as loonies. Here's for example the author of that paper, which I've linked before in my response to youYes, this guy, Bob, is a anti-relativity loon. If you prefer the opinions of people with an actual scientific career that sounds great! All the professional physicists teaching in all the universities in the world say you are wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rj-Buenker
This loonie works in a belgian university and has 185 publications on his account - so I don't see no reason to not rely on his statements. And who exactly are you? How many peer-reviewed papers did you published? Well, that's why opinion of that loonie has 1000x more value to me, than your baseless comments. Why should I waste my time on searching for peer-reviewed sources, to back-up my claims, if you will dismiss them anyway, due to their inconsistency with your static worldview? Bye bye...
To be honest, I don't see any sense in our further discussion, since your input doesn't have any value to me anyway.Clearly you don't think anybody's input has had any value. Several posters have pointed out problems with you idea and you just ignore the problems (that's wilfull ignorance).
Bye-bye.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 25/04/2021 02:25:51
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
Below is a simple animation, which represent the general idea of this experiment:
As you might guessed, I will now try to explain the results using my model of relativity. Of course I will be using made-up values, as my goal is to discuss only the general idea and not to precisely calculate the exact results, which were observed in real life - in order to do it I would have to include such values, like Earth's rotational velocity, exact velocities of the planes and the exact distances passed by each of them, while using nano-seconds as the units of measured time. No... I will strip this experiment to it's bones and make it as simplistic, as it can possibly be. Instead of nano-seconds and kilometers, I will be using units of time (tu) and space (su), which are derived from the speed of light (c=1su/1tu) - but just for fun I will also describe the rotational cycle of Earth using hours (24h/1d). Generally I will do everything, to make it easy to comprehend.
Animations below represent my simplified version of this experiment. Each waveform represents the measurements of one clock. Waveform in the middle represents measurements observed on the Earth's surface - in this scenario, one rotational cycle of the planet takes 24h (red waveform) and during this time, clock on the Earth's surface is passing the distance equal to 5su - so it's velocity equals to 5su/24h. Both planes are here moving with velocities equal to 2su/24h in relation to the Earth's surface - plane which moves in the direction of Earth's rotation is then passing 7su/24h, while the one which moves in opposite direction moves through 3su/24h
I've added as well a second set of measurements (white waveforms), which are defined by the constant c instead of 24h/1d cycle - I did so, because I wanted to use the interactive Minkowski diagram in order to see, if my predictions are somehow consistent with the SRT. In this set of measurements, clock on the surface is passing through 5su in 10tu (so it's velocity is equal to 0,5c) and during this time it measures 5 full cycles (ticks). Of course, similarly to the previous set of values, planes are moving at relative velocities equal to 0,2c in relation to the surface - so one of them is passing 7su in 10tu and the second one 3su in 10 tu.
Since what matters in this case, are just the relative velocities, I'm also ignoring the direction of plane's motion - on the animation below all frames are moving in the same direction. This way it will be easier for me to compare the predicted results with each other...
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hn7XCZX5/haffele5.gif)
As you might notice, on the animation above all 3 clocks are synchronized with each other - all of them measure the same number of cycles (5 ticks and 24h) despite moving through different distances during the same time period (24h or 10tu). But now the real fun begins. I want you to compare the wavelenghts of white waveforms - especially the one on top and the one in the middle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXFCf1ZL/bandicam-2021-04-24-08-05-24-959.jpg)
What makes it so important, is the fact that just like in one of my previous scenarios, those results are in 100% consistent with the time dilation predicted by SRT. This might be pretty troublesome for those, who would like to completely dismiss my model of relativity - by rejecting those results, they will also have to reject the SRT :)
(https://i.postimg.cc/660ggMzg/hafelle1.jpg)
But this is also where I've encountered a serious problem - and I'm asking for help anyone, who knows how to solve it. In shortcut, I simply have no idea, how to use the interactive diagram to calculate the time dilation for plane that moves at 0,3c. You see, in this particular scenario there's no synchronization of clocks in their own inertial frames - units of time and space just as the number of cycles (ticks) are initially synchronized with the clock that moves together with Earth's surface at 0,5c (red worldline). You might say, that clocks are synchronized with the inertial frame of Sun or some other observer, who remains suspended in a fixed point of interplanetary space. Problem is, that units of time and space will be always extended for the moving frames, than for the inertial frame of stationary observer located in the interplanetary space. It doesn't matter too much in the case of plane that moves at 0,7c - I can boost the coordinates to it's frame and compare the units acquired in such way with those, which are synchronized with the clock on Earth's surface (which is synchronized with the stationary frame of interplanetary space) - just like I did on the diagram above. However this won't work for the plane moving at 0,3c - units acquired by boosting the coordinates to it's frame will be always longer, than units synchronized with the clock on Earth's surface, while they should be shorter, as it moves 0,2c slower than the surface... I really have no idea how to solve this problem... Plz help!
But anyway, since in the case of a plane that moves at 0,7c, predictions of my model are in 100% consistent with the time dilation from SRT, I can probably assume, that they are as well valid for the frame of slower plane...
And here comes the most crucial part - in order to predict the time dilation in my model of relativity, all we have to do, is to compare the frequencies of the moving clocks with the one on the ground, using it's time measurements as the reference. In shortcut, we need to see how many hours and ticks, as they are being measured by moving clocks, will "fit" in 24h or 5 ticks measured on the Earth's surface. Below you can see the predicted results:
(https://i.postimg.cc/WtLrpGwy/haffele6.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGBr0srx/haffele7.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGM9p3pf/bandicam-2021-04-24-08-38-32-911.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGBr0srx/haffele7.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGM9p3pf/bandicam-2021-04-24-08-38-32-911.jpg)
If we count the number of measured cycles for each clock, we will learn, that for every 24h measured on the Earth's surface, clock onboard a plane that moves at 7su/24h (or 0,7c) will measure only 17,3h (so around 6,7h less), while clock onboard the plane which moves at 3su/24h (or 0,3c) will in this time measure as much, as 40h (so around 16h more).
As for the second set of measurements: for each 5 ticks measured on the surface, clock onboard the faster plane will measure around 3,57 ticks, while clock onboard the slower plane will measure around 8,31 ticks...
And that's it for now, when it comes to the famous Hafele–Keating experiment.
Post by: Origin on 25/04/2021 13:08:40
So how is that possible? How can the light beam and the space ship have no relative velocity in one frame and have relative velocity of c in another frame?
So there is this result and the result with the 'Einstein's clock' scenario that give absurd results. Your relativity doesn't work. You seem reasonably intelligent so I am sure that you see the issue. But for some reason you will ignore these facts and continue to tout your fantasy as a 'scientific breakthrough'. Living the fantasy is more important than reality? I just don't get you guys (relativity deniers). I do see that arguing with someone who disregards logic is a waste of time though....
Post by: CrazyScientist on 25/04/2021 13:49:00
In your relativity light has a speed of c and is invariant, but additionally an object with mass can go the speed of light or even faster. So that means of I could be in a space ship going the speed of light and as I fly past you, you could fire a laser beam so that the ship and front of the beam and my ship are side by side. So you would say that the laser beam and my ship could cross the light years side by side. However in my ship I would see the laser beam move away from me at c!Ok, now you speak science - and I like it :) First of all, in my model relative motion at ftl velocities (or at 100%c) is possible only if 2 (or more) frames are moving in opposite directions, so the situation, in which you are able to observe a laser beam, which in my frame is moving next to your space ship, is impossible. You would be able to observe that laser beam only if your spaceship would be incoming towards it. And second of all, to shoot at a spaceship, that is incoming towards me at ftl velocity, first I would have to see it coming - but since it moves faster than light, I won't be able to see it before it won't pass next to me - and then I would observe it's afterimages in reversed order.
So how is that possible? How can the light beam and the space ship have no relative velocity in one frame and have relative velocity of c in another frame?
So there is this result and the result with the 'Einstein's clock' scenario that give absurd results. Your relativity doesn't work. You seem reasonably intelligent so I am sure that you see the issue. But for some reason you will ignore these facts and continue to tout your fantasy as a 'scientific breakthrough'. Living the fantasy is more important than reality? I just don't get you guys (relativity deniers). I do see that arguing with someone who disregards logic is a waste of time though....
Post by: CrazyScientist on 25/04/2021 14:01:50
Post by: Origin on 25/04/2021 21:01:11
Ok, now you speak science - and I like it First of all, in my model relative motion at ftl velocities (or at 100%c) is possible only if 2 (or more) frames are moving in opposite directionsThat is irrelevant since either of the frames can consider themselves at rest.
So let's take the same situation except instead of the spaceship moving at c it is moving at c - 1 km/s. You still have the same nonsensical outcome. In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c. Your relativity still doesn't work.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 25/04/2021 21:55:21
Ok, now you speak science - and I like it First of all, in my model relative motion at ftl velocities (or at 100%c) is possible only if 2 (or more) frames are moving in opposite directionsThat is irrelevant since either of the frames can consider themselves at rest.
So let's take the same situation except instead of the spaceship moving at c it is moving at c - 1 km/s. You still have the same nonsensical outcome. In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c. Your relativity still doesn't work.
"In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c." - is it strange, that I consider this as something absolutely logical?
As long as the beam won't reach your ship constancy of c won't be violated. You would have to decelerate your space ship.
Question is what would happen in such case. I might have couple ideas, but it is probably too early for me to speak about such things as acceleration/deceleration in relative motion...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 25/04/2021 22:59:25
0→v1→c←v2←0
In standard relaivity their relative velocity in respect to each other is almost reaching 2c - and somehow reality doesn't break down. Yeah I know your standard explanations - lenght contraction - but this is nothing more than unproven experimentally interpretation of the actual phenomenon...
But since we're speaking about relativity and the LHC - I've found something interesting:
https://lhc-closer.es/taking_a_closer_look_at_lhc/0.relativity
Quote
2.- Head-on collisions.
Mass m1 and m2 in a head-on collision (ɵ = 180º).
s = (m1·c2)2 + (m2 c2)2 + 2(E1·E2 + 2·p1c·p2c)
Take into account that Ei >> mi·c2 and Ei ~ pi·c , we have:
s ~ 2(E1·E2·+ E1·E2) às ~ 4E1·E2
√s ~ 2√(E1·E2)
For the special case of identicle particles of equal momentum, colliding head-on (like the case of LHC), the COM is at rest in the lab, and:
s = (m·c2)2 + (m c2)2 + 2(E·E + 2·pc·pc)
s = 2(m·c2)2 + 2·E2 + 2(p·c)2 às = 4·E2
√s = 2·E
So, in the case of p-p collision at LHC, with 7 TeV per proton:
√s = 14 TeV
That is the energy available for new particle production in LHC collision.
And what is especially interesting for me, is this fragment:
So, in the case of p-p collision at LHC, with 7 TeV per proton: √s = 14 TeV
Although i'm not a professional mathematician, it looks to me, like a result of pretty standard non-relativistic energy addition - something what is being done in Galilean model of relative motion... Hmm..
Post by: Origin on 26/04/2021 00:52:06
"In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c." - is it strange, that I consider this as something absolutely logical?Yes, I find it beyond strange. Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities. So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it. From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives. This is not strange to you?
Edited for clarification.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 10:30:29
"In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c." - is it strange, that I consider this as something absolutely logical?Yes, I find it beyond strange. Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities. So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it. From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives. This is not strange to you?
Edited for clarification.
You forget to take into account the fact, that speed of light is immeasurable in one-directional motion, so the results observed from the perspective of light source are invalid. What matters, is the time at which light reaches the moving sensor (space ship), as it is observed in the frame of that sensor. And since speed of light is constant, laser beam emitted (e.g) 2ls away from your space ship, will reach you always after 2s. If you want to measure the speed of light from the perspective of light source, you have to do it in a two-directional motion - so you would have to reflect that laser beam back to it's source with a mirror mounted on your space ship. And as I proved couple times already, in my model constant c is always maintained in each case of two-directional motion.
Post by: Origin on 28/04/2021 13:31:46
You forget to take into account the fact, that speed of light is immeasurable in one-directional motion, so the results observed from the perspective of light source are invalid.Not true. I don't actually have to measure the speed of light in my scenario.
Here is the scenario again. Notice at no point do I state we are measuring the speed of light, I am simply using your postulates that the speed of light is invariant, t' = t and L' = L.
Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities. So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it. From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 13:56:30
And in what way the source of light might learn at which time the laser reached the photo cell on a moving space ship? It would need to get that information from that ship - and we end once again with a two-directional motion path of light...You forget to take into account the fact, that speed of light is immeasurable in one-directional motion, so the results observed from the perspective of light source are invalid.Not true. I don't actually have to measure the speed of light in my scenario.
Here is the scenario again. Notice at no point do I state we are measuring the speed of light, I am simply using your postulates that the speed of light is invariant, t' = t and L' = L.
Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities. So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it. From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.
Post by: Origin on 28/04/2021 14:45:21
And in what way the source of light might learn at which time the laser reached the photo cell on a moving space ship? It would need to get that information from that ship - and we end once again with a two-directional motion path of light...Nope. The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship. So let's assume the laser is on earth and it is aimed at a photoreceptor 4 ly away in the same frame as the earth. As the ship flies by the earth the laser is fired at the target.
So.....
From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 15:03:02
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 15:07:17
And in what way the source of light might learn at which time the laser reached the photo cell on a moving space ship? It would need to get that information from that ship - and we end once again with a two-directional motion path of light...Nope. The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship. So let's assume the laser is on earth and it is aimed at a photoreceptor 4 ly away in the same frame as the earth. As the ship flies by the earth the laser is fired at the target.
So.....
From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.
But wait a second - from your description it seems, that this ship is moving at 100%c. Am I right?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 15:19:00
(https://i.postimg.cc/8sQv8r97/pipp.jpg)
Post by: Origin on 28/04/2021 15:21:54
But wait a second - from your description it seems, that this ship is moving at 100%c. Am I right?No, as I stated earlier the ship just under the speed of light, specifically c - 1km/s.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 15:26:22
So is the diagram correct?But wait a second - from your description it seems, that this ship is moving at 100%c. Am I right?No, as I stated earlier the ship just under the speed of light, specifically c - 1km/s.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 15:36:23
Nope. The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship. So let's assume the laser is on earth and it is aimed at a photoreceptor 4 ly away in the same frame as the earth. As the ship flies by the earth the laser is fired at the target.Still this doesn't make sense. If the laser is fired when space ship is passing next to Earth and that space ship moves at 0,99c (or so), then from where did you get those 2ly???
So.....
From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time. From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years. So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/04/2021 15:41:41
The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship.Also this won't never happen, if that laser is about to ever hit the space ship
Post by: Origin on 28/04/2021 15:52:16
Ok, so this is what I figured out from your desccription - I just made the velocity of space ship little less than c. Is this correct?Assuming the yellow line is light and the blue line is the ship that is not right. You have the ships starting point 2 ly from the origin for some reason. The laser and the ship both are at the origin at t = 0.
The other major problem is you have no transforms to make your graphs!
This is not a mathematical transform: X' = X - vt + (light doesn't follow these rules).
Edit to fix x and x'.
Post by: Origin on 28/04/2021 16:01:28
Still this doesn't make sense. If the laser is fired when space ship is passing next to Earth and that space ship moves at 0,99c (or so), then from where did you get those 2ly???I was trying to make it easy by using rough numbers. Actually the ship will be 31,536 km short of 2 ly after 2 years of travel using a speed of (c - 1 km/s) I stated, which is small enough to disregard.
Post by: Origin on 28/04/2021 16:03:02
Also this won't never happen, if that laser is about to ever hit the space shipWhat? Why would the laser hit the ship?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 29/04/2021 16:27:05
Ok, so this is what I figured out from your desccription - I just made the velocity of space ship little less than c. Is this correct?Assuming the yellow line is light and the blue line is the ship that is not right. You have the ships starting point 2 ly from the origin for some reason. The laser and the ship both are at the origin at t = 0.
The other major problem is you have no transforms to make your graphs!
This is not a mathematical transform: X' = X - vt + (light doesn't follow these rules).
Edit to fix x and x'.
I wanted to show just one frame - in this case the frame of Earth and the photoreceptor 4ly away. I think, that the best way would be, if you would make the diagram by yourself - here's the interactive diagram, which I'm using:
http://ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html
It's pretty simple to use, so you should figure out how to do it...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 29/04/2021 16:29:31
But how? If the ship is traveling at around 0,99c and the laser is being fired when that ship is passing right next to Earth, then there won't be such a number in this scenario....Still this doesn't make sense. If the laser is fired when space ship is passing next to Earth and that space ship moves at 0,99c (or so), then from where did you get those 2ly???I was trying to make it easy by using rough numbers. Actually the ship will be 31,536 km short of 2 ly after 2 years of travel using a speed of (c - 1 km/s) I stated, which is small enough to disregard.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 29/04/2021 16:32:30
It won't hit it, if it travels at 100%c - and in any other case light can't be stationary in the frame of shipAlso this won't never happen, if that laser is about to ever hit the space shipWhat? Why would the laser hit the ship?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 30/04/2021 01:45:12
Still this doesn't make sense. If the laser is fired when space ship is passing next to Earth and that space ship moves at 0,99c (or so), then from where did you get those 2ly???I was trying to make it easy by using rough numbers. Actually the ship will be 31,536 km short of 2 ly after 2 years of travel using a speed of (c - 1 km/s) I stated, which is small enough to disregard.
Ok, I think that I've got your point and I know where did you get those numbers from. Let us then compare the results predicted in both models of relativity (Einstein's and mine). Below is the scenario, as it is observed in the frame of Earth and the photoreceptor 4ly away from it (red worldlines represent Earth and the fotoreceptor, blue worldline is for the ship and yellow ones for the laser). I've made as well a small "upgrade" of the scenario and now in the frame of Earth at t=0 both the Earth and the photoreceptor (let's make it a space station) are simultaneously emitting lasers towards each other - this way things will be more interesting:
since the interactive diagram is not precise enough, let's assume, that at t=0 distance between Earth and the space ship is equal to 0,1ly :
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JjZ4mkn/pipp3b.jpg)
at t=0 Earth and the space station emit lasers simultaneously
at around t=1,9 laser emitted from space station is passing next to space ship
at t=4 we have 3 simultaneous events:
-laser emitted from space station reaches Earth
-laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space station
-in the same time space ship is passing right next to the space station
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JjZ4mkn/pipp3b.jpg)
at t=0 Earth and the space station emit lasers simultaneously
at around t=1,9 laser emitted from space station is passing next to space ship
at t=4 we have 3 simultaneous events:
-laser emitted from space station reaches Earth
-laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space station
-in the same time space ship is passing right next to the space station
***
Here is the frame of Earth and the space station, as it is predicted by my model of relativity
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk8NnS3j/ship2a.jpg)
Here is the frame of space ship, as it is predicted by my model of relativity
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2jkBjfR/ship1.jpg)
at t=0 Earth and the space station emit lasers simultaneously
at t=0,1 laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space ship
at t=3,9 laser emitted from space station is reaching the space ship
at t=4 we have 3 simultaneous events:
-laser emitted from space station reaches Earth
-laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space station
-space ship is passing right next to the space station
***
And here is the frame of space ship, as it is predicted by SRT:
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJ3Yy5hF/ship3.jpg)
at t=-10 laser is emitted by the space station
at t=0 we have 2 simultaaneous events:
- laser is being emitted from Earth
- laser emitted from the space station is reaching the ship
at around t=0,9 we have 2 simultaneous events again:
- space ship is passing right next to the space station
- light emietted from Earth is reaching both the ship and the station
at t=10 laser emitted from the space station is reaching Earth
Here is the frame of Earth and the space station, as it is predicted by my model of relativity
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk8NnS3j/ship2a.jpg)
Here is the frame of space ship, as it is predicted by my model of relativity
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2jkBjfR/ship1.jpg)
at t=0 Earth and the space station emit lasers simultaneously
at t=0,1 laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space ship
at t=3,9 laser emitted from space station is reaching the space ship
at t=4 we have 3 simultaneous events:
-laser emitted from space station reaches Earth
-laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space station
-space ship is passing right next to the space station
***
And here is the frame of space ship, as it is predicted by SRT:
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJ3Yy5hF/ship3.jpg)
at t=-10 laser is emitted by the space station
at t=0 we have 2 simultaaneous events:
- laser is being emitted from Earth
- laser emitted from the space station is reaching the ship
at around t=0,9 we have 2 simultaneous events again:
- space ship is passing right next to the space station
- light emietted from Earth is reaching both the ship and the station
at t=10 laser emitted from the space station is reaching Earth
It seems, that both predictions have their own advantages and disadvantages. In my model at t=0 lasers are emitted simultaneously and at t=4 they are both reaching the receivers 4ly away. Problem is, that in the frame of space ship laser emitted from Earth is reaching it (at t=0,1) before it reaches the space station (at t=4) - while in the frame of Earth it should reach both of them simultaneously at t=4
In Einstein's model laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space station and the space ship simultaneously. Problem is however, that in the frame of space ship emissions are no longer simultaneous and lasers are reaching the Earth and the station at completely different times.
Ok, so now the question is: which of those predictions are the (more) valid ones? Sadly, as for today there's no way to validate any of this experimentally - so, we're left with just one option: we need to see which one of them is more logically consistent and generally more possible to actually occur in real-life. The best way to do it, is probably to see the level of disagreement as for the timeline of particular events, as they are observed in both frames.
Let's assume for a moment the possibility of instant communication between the Earth and the space station - but at the same time communication between them and the space ship is possible only when two objects are crossing the same point of space. I've extended slightly the worldlines of the Earth and the space ship, so they are now crossing each other at around t=-0,1 in the frame of Earth. I've also added another emission of light associated with the moment of their crossing:
(https://i.postimg.cc/FzdKLyFz/ships21.jpg)
And here's the frame of space ship according to my model:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZ1vZkdw/ships1.jpg)
And according to SRT:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMTX8bkP/ships2a.jpg)
And here's the frame of space ship according to my model:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZ1vZkdw/ships1.jpg)
And according to SRT:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMTX8bkP/ships2a.jpg)
And this is where SRT breaks apart. Why?
1. When the space ship and the Earh are crossing one point of space, laser was already emitted by the space station (long time ago) for the space ship, but it still wasn't emitted for Earth
2. In the frame of space ship, light emitted by Earth during the crossing, is reaching the space station (at around t=-0,1) before the emission of laser is taking place on Earth (at t=0 in Earth's frame) - but in the frame of that space station, this light is reaching it 3,9 years after this emission took place
3. In the frame of space station, laser emitted by that station (at t=0) is reaching Earth in the same moment when the space ship and the station are crossing one point of space (at t=4) - but in the frame of space ship, at the same moment the same laser still didn't reach Earth (and won't reach it for a loooooong time).
In comparisment - according to my model, laser emitted from Earth is reaching the space ship much earlier, than it reaches the station. However in the moment when space ship is right next to space station, both of them will agree, that this laser already reached them both in their own inertial frames
So, in my model the only disagreement is about the time at which laser is reaching the space ship - while in SRT space ship doesn't agree with the Earth and the station, if events still didn't or did already happen for each one of them...
I think, that in this case, my model makes predictions, which make much more sense. But since my opinion is probably biased - you'll be the judge...
Post by: Origin on 30/04/2021 16:23:52
I've made as well a small "upgrade" of the scenario and now in the frame of Earth at t=0 both the Earth and the photoreceptor (let's make it a space station) are simultaneously emitting lasers towards each other - this way things will be more interesting
Let's not make it 'interesting'. I don't want to over complicate the example, the point of the discussion is to clearly and simply test your concept of relativity. The goal here is to test your hypothesis as clearly and concisely as possible.
You also seem to have trouble understanding my proposal that the speed of the spaceship is almost c. That is my fault and since the speed of the spaceship is not important, let's make the example simpler and say the spaceship is moving at .5c.
Here is my example and I hope it is clear to you:
There is a laser and a receiver both at rest with 4 ly separating them. There is also spaceship that is traveling at .5c relative to the rest frame. Here is a picture showing that.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Here we show the spaceship as it flies by the laser. Just as the ship reaches the laser the laser fires at the receiver. We will designate this point (the ship passing the laser) as the origin of our coordinate system. Here is the picture of that.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Now we can draw a space time diagram for the 2 inertial frames. Your relativity is based on Galilean relativity (t' = t and L' = L) and also states that the speed of light is c in all inertial frames. Since t' = t, we can have all the clocks synchronized.
The first space time diagram is from the frame of the laser and the receiver. This shows that the laser light would reach the receiver in 4 years and the spaceship would reach the receiver in 8 years. This makes sense so far.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The second space time diagram is from the frame of the spaceship, which means the ship remains at x = 0 and the receiver 'moves' towards the spaceship. Since the speed of light is c in all inertial frames, that means the laser will move at c towards the receiver relative to the ship. After approximately 2.7 years the light from the laser will reach the receiver.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
There is obviously something wrong! The light from the laser cannot arrive at the receiver at year 2.7 and year 4! The reason for the discrepancy is because you arbitrarily put in the stipulation that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames without any mathematical reason. In other words you allow light and only light to violate Galilean relativity. It is no wonder the results don't make sense.
Please let me know if you think there is a mistake in this.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 30/04/2021 21:52:49
I've made as well a small "upgrade" of the scenario and now in the frame of Earth at t=0 both the Earth and the photoreceptor (let's make it a space station) are simultaneously emitting lasers towards each other - this way things will be more interesting
Let's not make it 'interesting'. I don't want to over complicate the example, the point of the discussion is to clearly and simply test your concept of relativity. The goal here is to test your hypothesis as clearly and concisely as possible.
You also seem to have trouble understanding my proposal that the speed of the spaceship is almost c. That is my fault and since the speed of the spaceship is not important, let's make the example simpler and say the spaceship is moving at .5c.
Here is my example and I hope it is clear to you:
There is a laser and a receiver both at rest with 4 ly separating them. There is also spaceship that is traveling at .5c relative to the rest frame. Here is a picture showing that.explain1.JPG (10.45 kB . 600x300 - viewed 2542 times)
Here we show the spaceship as it flies by the laser. Just as the ship reaches the laser the laser fires at the receiver. We will designate this point (the ship passing the laser) as the origin of our coordinate system. Here is the picture of that.
Now we can draw a space time diagram for the 2 inertial frames. Your relativity is based on Galilean relativity (t' = t and L' = L) and also states that the speed of light is c in all inertial frames. Since t' = t, we can have all the clocks synchronized.
The first space time diagram is from the frame of the laser and the receiver. This shows that the laser light would reach the receiver in 4 years and the spaceship would reach the receiver in 8 years. This makes sense so far.
The second space time diagram is from the frame of the spaceship, which means the ship remains at x = 0 and the receiver 'moves' towards the spaceship. Since the speed of light is c in all inertial frames, that means the laser will move at c towards the receiver relative to the ship. After approximately 2.7 years the light from the laser will reach the receiver.
There is obviously something wrong! The light from the laser cannot arrive at the receiver at year 2.7 and year 4! The reason for the discrepancy is because you arbitrarily put in the stipulation that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames without any mathematical reason. In other words you allow light and only light to violate Galilean relativity. It is no wonder the results don't make sense.
Please let me know if you think there is a mistake in this.
I don't understand your confusion... Stationary source of light has an invalid view of the frame of a moving receiver. Valid results are those observed in the inertial frame of that receiver - light emitted 4ly away from it will always reach it 4y later (t=4):
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31809;image)
To represent it on the diagram for inertial frame of space ship, you simply boost the light cone according to the relative velocity of the receiver:
(https://i.postimg.cc/J7gyW3WG/ship-frame1.jpg)
Invalid? Not at all - constant c is always maintained in each case of two-directiconal motion:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRRj0rdN/ship-frame2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wx47XCxt/Laser-frame2.jpg)
Speed of light is constant in each inertial frame what makes it specific for it. And that's it - it couldn't be more simple. And yet no one didn't figure it out before.
Invalid? Not at all - constant c is always maintained in each case of two-directiconal motion:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRRj0rdN/ship-frame2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wx47XCxt/Laser-frame2.jpg)
Speed of light is constant in each inertial frame what makes it specific for it. And that's it - it couldn't be more simple. And yet no one didn't figure it out before.
Post by: Origin on 30/04/2021 22:20:13
I don't understand your confusion... Stationary source of light has an invalid view on the frame of a moving receiver.As I clearly stated the laser and the receiver are stationary with respect to each other.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 30/04/2021 22:25:26
So? It doesn't matter. Here you have (added second blue worldline at x=0)I don't understand your confusion... Stationary source of light has an invalid view on the frame of a moving receiver.As I clearly stated the laser and the receiver are stationary with respect to each other.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYNrbnvY/Laser-frame2.jpg)
Post by: Origin on 30/04/2021 23:49:45
So? It doesn't matter. Here you have (added second blue worldline at x=0)No, you have added a blue line. Presumably the world line of the laser, which changes nothing.
Post by: Origin on 30/04/2021 23:55:08
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 01:02:48
The issue is that in the ship's frame the light will reach the the receiver in about 2.7 years instead of 4 years. If you decide to add lines to the graph, please label them.
So what? His view of a moving frame is distorted and invalid by default...
Post by: Origin on 01/05/2021 02:04:42
So what? His view of a moving frame is distorted and invalid by default...Why? Because this gives a result you don't like?
Could you please cite your source that says there are certain inertial frames where relativity is invalid.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 09:44:44
No. Because it's a well known scientific fact, that moving things appear distorted for a stationary observerSo what? His view of a moving frame is distorted and invalid by default...Why? Because this gives a result you don't like?
Quote
Could you please cite your source that says there are certain inertial frames where relativity is invalid.
In my model ALL inertial frames ARE valid. Moving frames are the invalid ones
Post by: Origin on 01/05/2021 12:58:28
No. 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.
In 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.
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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 01/05/2021 16:40:55
It has everything to do with your example.No. 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.
Quote
In 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.
Yes. But the only valid results are the one observed by receiver in HIS inertial frame
Quote
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.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
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.
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/05/2021 17:20:28
Post by: Origin on 01/05/2021 17:46:53
It has everything to do with your example.Nope.
Yes. But the only valid results are the one observed by receiver in HIS inertial frameNope.
And 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!
I 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
Post by: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 08:57:45
YepIt has everything to do with your example.Nope.
Quote
YepYes. But the only valid results are the one observed by receiver in HIS inertial frameNope.
Quote
And 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!
Let me help you
Inertial frame of receiver: valid result
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31809;image)
Moving frame of receiver: invalid result
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31811;image)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31809;image)
Moving frame of receiver: invalid result
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31811;image)
Quote
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...I 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
Post by: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 09:15:21
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?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
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/05/2021 13:00:17
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?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
You are not a genius with some revolutionary idea that will change science. You are sitting at a computer, anonymously pestering members of a science forum. Can't you find regular employment?
Post by: Origin on 02/05/2021 14:01:55
Let me help youOK
Inertial frame of receiver: valid result
Laser frame.jpg (22.46 kB . 600x450 - viewed 4611 times)This is from the reference frame of the laser and receiver(the inertial frame as you call it). So in this space time diagram it shows the receiver at rest and the space ship in motion.
Moving frame of receiver: invalid result
ship frame.jpg (21.29 kB . 600x450 - viewed 2603 times)This is from the reference frame of the spaceship (the inertial frame as you call it). So in this space time diagram it shows the spaceship at rest and the receiver in motion.
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.
A space time diagram is not invalid simply because you don't like the result. For it to be invalid there needs to be an actual physical reason.
Again, in the first diagram the ship is moving and in the second diagram the receiver is moving. Do you think there is some sort of problem with that?
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...Insulting me does not in any way strengthen your position.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 15:31:47
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
2. 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)
Post by: Origin on 02/05/2021 15:48:36
It is invalid because:So that would mean in the frame of the receiver that the moving frame of the spaceship is distorted due to it's motion. So based on that, both space time diagrams are invalid! You can't have it both ways. If it's invalid in one frame it's invalid in the other.
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)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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 15:58:02
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y2J0npzm/Laser-frame2a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mkqbKS9s/ship-frame2a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mkqbKS9s/ship-frame2a.jpg)
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...
Post by: Origin on 02/05/2021 17:03:08
Sorry 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.
I have it both ways and those diagrams should explain everything.Sorry, the explanation is not logical using your postulates.
Quote
I really feel, like I would be talking with a 10yo kid...There is no need for personal attacks.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 19:04:24
Sorry 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.I 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.
The problem is, that you just seem to be unable to understand basic facts about the constant speed of light. For example you write:
Quote
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.
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
Post by: Origin on 02/05/2021 20:09:56
The problem is, that you just seem to be unable to understand basic facts about the constant speed of light.Nope, I get it just fine.
Quote
And you don't understand, that to know the time at which light reaches the moving sensor, you actually have to measure it's speedThat 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.
But you don't need to really worry about any of that, because you can just draw a space time diagram and see that your relativity does not work.
I am anxiously awaiting your answer as to why you drew the speed of light at 0.5c on your last diagram.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 20:43:30
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.
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 frame
It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver
Quote
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.Yes - this is called two-directional transfer of information. Space ship has to ASK the receiver at which time the laser reached it. That's what I'm telling you all the time
And when asked the receiver will give those rsults:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31819;image)
Which were observed in it's own inertial frame: light remitted 4ly away from it, reached it after 4 years.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 02/05/2021 20:52:19
I am anxiously awaiting your answer as to why you drew the speed of light at 0.5c on your last diagram.this is why:
Quote
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
Post by: Origin on 02/05/2021 22:05:16
No. 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.
Quote
It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frameSorry but that means not every observer (in their own frame of course) will say the speed of light is c.
It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver
I 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:
Why? 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.
Post by: Origin on 03/05/2021 01:19:34
I asked, "Why did you draw the speed of light at 0.5c on your diagram in post #169".
So your reply is:
My postulate is that: c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.Let's review what an inertial frame is. An inertial frame is any frame that is not accelerating.
It IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frame
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
Quote
It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiverI really don't know what you are talking about. When comparing reference frames one of them will ALWAYS be moving relative to the other.
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/05/2021 11:21:33
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 16:23:57
No. A frame, where observer is moving is not his frameNo. 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.
Quote
Because you can't measure the speed of light in one-directional motion. This means, that you have to "ask" the receiver at which time the light reached it - and if that light was emitted 4ly away from that receiver, it wil "tell", that light reached it 4 years after emissionQuoteYes - but in relation to him and not to a moving frameQuoteIt IS constant in relation to the receiver in it's inerial frameSorry but that means not every observer (in their own frame of course) will say the speed of light is c.
It is NOT constant in relation to a moving receiver
I 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:QuoteWhy? 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?
Quote
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.I didn't say it is constant in relation to all frames. I said, that it's constant in relation to observer in his own inertial frame
Quote
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.Sure - you can show it to me. I did it, so I know, what it represents. Yes - I boosted the light according to the velocity of receiver (0,5c) - and now 0,5c + 0,5c makes 1c, which is observed in the rest frame of that receiver
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 16:28:18
Let's review what an inertial frame is. An inertial frame is any frame that is not accelerating.No. Frame in which the receiver is moving is not the inertial frame of that receiver.
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.
Quote
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 cYes - because speed of light in relation to the MOVING receiver is not constant. It is constant in relation to the reeiver in it's own inertial frame, where it remains at rest.
Quote
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.YES. And in my model speed of light is constant in relation to the STATIONARY one and is NOT constant inrelation to the MOVING one
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 16:29:32
@CrazyScientist You refuse to admit to not understanding relativity, when you clearly don't. You make illogical assertions and stubbornly defend them. That is very troll-like behaviour. Are you going to start addressing the points that people are putting to you or will you continue to act like a troll?I'm trying to answer to all comments, but I might missed some of them. Tell me which post I didn't adress and I will do it next.
Post by: Colin2B on 04/05/2021 17:27:54
No. Frame in which the receiver is moving is not the inertial frame of that receiver.You are causing confusion by misusing a term (inertial frame) which is already defined in both Galilean and Special Relativity. You need a different term.
In Galilean Relativity it is not possible to tell whether you are moving if your frame or motion is inertial.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 17:30:29
No. Frame in which the receiver is moving is not the inertial frame of that receiver.You are causing confusion by misusing a term (inertial frame) which is already defined in both Galilean and Special Relativity. You need a different term.
In Galilean Relativity it is not possible to tell whether you are moving if your frame or motion is inertial.
Thanks! Then maybe I will use the term "rest frame" instead. Will it be ok? What i ment by "inertial frame" is a frame, where the object of interest appears to be at rest.
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/05/2021 18:44:12
@CrazyScientist You refuse to admit to not understanding relativity, when you clearly don't. You make illogical assertions and stubbornly defend them. That is very troll-like behaviour. Are you going to start addressing the points that people are putting to you or will you continue to act like a troll?I'm trying to answer to all comments, but I might missed some of them. Tell me which post I didn't adress and I will do it next.
How about all of them
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 19:24:07
I'm doing my best@CrazyScientist You refuse to admit to not understanding relativity, when you clearly don't. You make illogical assertions and stubbornly defend them. That is very troll-like behaviour. Are you going to start addressing the points that people are putting to you or will you continue to act like a troll?I'm trying to answer to all comments, but I might missed some of them. Tell me which post I didn't adress and I will do it next.
How about all of them
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 20:46:36
I will begin this subject with a question: Let's say, that 2 objects A and B are moving at 0,5c in relation to each other - which one of them will experience higher rate of time flow?
According to my model, time will be flowing for both of them at the same rate. But according to SRT time will flow faster for the stationary object and it will flow slower for the moving one. But then which object is the stationary one, if both of them are moving in relation to each other?
But to adress this issue in more details, I will try to explain, what in my model makes the difference between this scenario:
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvrpVTm5/time.gif)
And this one:
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvrpVTm5/time.gif)
And this one:
I've spent some time making a scene, which will include both scenarios - that means clocks, which remain on the Earth's surface and those onboard 2 planes, that move in opposite directions along the equator. In this scenario in the time of 2 full Earth's rotational cycles (2 days) each of 2 planes moves around Earth once, but in opposite directions. This results in a situation, where from the perspective of an observer, who remains suspended in a fixed position in the interplanetary space, Earth rotates 2 times, one plane moves around the Earth once, while the second plane moves around it 3 times:
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVjs7Lqd/earth2.gif)
As I said earlier, in my model clocks, that remain on the surface will be always synchronized, despite them moving at different velocities due to their locations at different latitudes. Image below should show you why it is so:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9FJWh1h9/earth6.jpg)
In shortcut, all 3 waveforms have different wavelenghts, but it is compensated by the differences of their velocities, so that all of them have the same frequency of cycles (24 per each rotation).
However things will be different for the clocks onboard moving planes, as one of them (faster one - red color) will now count 48 cycles during 3 rotations around Earth and the second one (slower one - green color) will count 48 cycles during one rotation.
If we look at the waveform for the clock onboard the faster plane (red one), we'll see, that it's wavelenght got bigger by 1/3 in relation to the clock placed on the surface at the equator:
(https://i.postimg.cc/mgLDyQpV/earth4.gif)
At the same time, wavelenght in the waveform representing the clock onboard the slower plane (green one), will get 2 times shorter, in relation to the clock at the equator:
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6KQ1CWs/earth5.gif)
And since the rate of time flow is in my model defined by the frequency of cycles, time will flow 2 times faster onboard the green plane and 1/3 slower onboard the red plane in relation to clocks, which remain on the Earth's surface. Of course, those results are not representing the actual experiment, as velocities in my scenario are given in relation to constant c, while in real-life rotational velocity of Earh, just like the velocities of planes are MUCH slower than the light - so, the effects of time dilation observed in real-life will be MUCH smaller. And just in case, I will remind you, that the differences in the number of counted cycles onboard the planes are (for some reason) in 100% consistent with the time dilation, which is predicted in SRT...
(https://i.postimg.cc/nhTKtyRJ/earth6.gif)
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/05/2021 21:16:01
Ok, I think that I need to adress the Hafele-Keating experiment once again. As I showed in one of my previous posts, my predictions were in 100% consistent with the effects of time dilation predicted by SRT (to my own surprise) - and since my model suppose to be an alternative solution to the constancy of c in relative motion, it makes it kinda self-contradictory. This is why I probably have to explain the major differences between my model of relativity and the SRT.
I will begin this subject with a question: Let's say, that 2 objects A and B are moving at 0,5c in relation to each other - which one of them will experience higher rate of time flow?
According to my model, time will be flowing for both of them at the same rate. But according to SRT time will flow faster for the stationary object and it will flow slower for the moving one. But then which object is the stationary one, if both of them are moving in relation to each other?But to adress this issue in more details, I will try to explain, what in my model makes the difference between this scenario:
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvrpVTm5/time.gif)
And this one:
I've spent some time making a scene, which will include both scenarios - that means clocks, which remain on the Earth's surface and those onboard 2 planes, that move in opposite directions along the equator. In this scenario in the time of 2 full Earth's rotational cycles (2 days) each of 2 planes moves around Earth once, but in opposite directions. This results in a situation, where from the perspective of an observer, who remains suspended in a fixed position in the interplanetary space, Earth rotates 2 times, one plane moves around the Earth once, while the second plane moves around it 3 times:(https://i.postimg.cc/dVjs7Lqd/earth2.gif)
As I said earlier, in my model clocks, that remain on the surface will be always synchronized, despite them moving at different velocities due to their locations at different latitudes. Image below should show you why it is so:(https://i.postimg.cc/9FJWh1h9/earth6.jpg)
In shortcut, all 3 waveforms have different wavelenghts, but it is compensated by the differences of their velocities, so that all of them have the same frequency of cycles (24 per each rotation).
However things will be different for the clocks onboard moving planes, as one of them (faster one - red color) will now count 48 cycles during 3 rotations around Earth and the second one (slower one - green color) will count 48 cycles during one rotation.
If we look at the waveform for the clock onboard the faster plane (red one), we'll see, that it's wavelenght got bigger by 1/3 in relation to the clock placed on the surface at the equator:(https://i.postimg.cc/mgLDyQpV/earth4.gif)
At the same time, wavelenght in the waveform representing the clock onboard the slower plane (green one), will get 2 times shorter, in relation to the clock at the equator:(https://i.postimg.cc/V6KQ1CWs/earth5.gif)
And since the rate of time flow is in my model defined by the frequency of cycles, time will flow 2 times faster onboard the green plane and 1/3 slower onboard the red plane in relation to clocks, which remain on the Earth's surface. Of course, those results are not representing the actual experiment, as velocities in my scenario are given in relation to constant c, while in real-life rotational velocity of Earh, just like the velocities of planes are MUCH slower than the light - so, the effects of time dilation observed in real-life will be MUCH smaller. And just in case, I will remind you, that the differences in the number of counted cycles onboard the planes are (for some reason) in 100% consistent with the time dilation, which is predicted in SRT...(https://i.postimg.cc/nhTKtyRJ/earth6.gif)
Have you ever considered working for Disney? They have fairy tales all wrapped up.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 21:21:22
Have you ever considered working for Disney? They have fairy tales all wrapped up.I would love to - I'm sure they would pay me much more than I earn rght now.
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/05/2021 21:27:38
Have you ever considered working for Disney? They have fairy tales all wrapped up.I would love to - I'm sure they would pay me much more than I earn rght now.
Then why not just let us have a sane conversation. You put a lot of effort into defending an untenable position. You could be actually learning some very interesting things, but you need to put your listening ears on.
You might actually make some friends, instead of simply antagonising people. If you simply carry on the way you are then you lose that possibility.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 21:34:21
I'm trying to. Look for example at my response to Colin2B couple posts above. He had a CONCRETE objection and I thanked him for it.Have you ever considered working for Disney? They have fairy tales all wrapped up.I would love to - I'm sure they would pay me much more than I earn rght now.
Then why not just let us have a sane conversation. You put a lot of effort into defending an untenable position. You could be actually learning some very interesting things, but you need to put your listening ears on.
You might actually make some friends, instead of simply antagonising people. If you simply carry on the way you are then you lose that possibility.
Post by: Origin on 04/05/2021 22:27:49
No. A frame, where observer is moving is not his frameI am not sure you have got this yet so I will address it. You can only be in your own frame, how could you be in a frame that is not your own? If I am moving at a constant velocity I am in an inertial frame. I am obviously in my own frame. If I pass by somebody not moving relative to me then they are in another inertial frame. They also are in there own frame. It is impossible to be in another frame than your own. It would be the same as saying you are moving at different speed than you are moving; it makes no sense.
Because you can't measure the speed of light in one-directional motion. This means, that you have to "ask" the receiver at which time the light reached it - and if that light was emitted 4ly away from that receiver, it wil "tell", that light reached it 4 years after emissionNot according to the space time diagram.
I didn't say it is constant in relation to all frames.That's to bad, because experimentation shows that the speed of light is c in ALL inertial frames.
I said, that it's constant in relation to observer in his own inertial frameThat is not what you drew in your space time diagram!
Wrong ship frame.jpg (30.78 kB . 600x450 - viewed 4300 times)This is a space time diagram drawn with the spaceship inertial frame at rest. You drew the green line which shows that from the frame of the spaceship the speed of light is 0.5c. That means the speed of light is not constant in the spaceships inertial frame. I'm sorry it that is not what you want but that is what the space time diagram is showing.
ship frame.jpg (21.29 kB . 600x450 - viewed 2347 times)I drew the space time diagram based on your postulate (the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames) and you get a travel time of 2.7 years.
So in one diagram the travel time makes no sense and in the other diagram the speed makes no sense.
The problem is in the underlying assumptions you made about the relativity - It doesn't work.
Sure - you can show it to me. I did it, so I know, what it represents. Yes - I boosted the light according to the velocity of receiver (0,5c) and now 0,5c + 0,5c makes 1c, which is observed in the rest frame of that receiverThis is not difficult! That means in the in the rest frame of the spaceships the speed of light is 0.5 c, which violates your postulate.
Let's pretend there was no receiver. Then you would draw the speed of light as c for the spaceship frame. If there is a receiver though, all the sudden the speed of light drops by half? Think about what you are saying, it makes no sense.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 23:14:33
No. A frame, where observer is moving is not his frameI am not sure you have got this yet so I will address it. You can only be in your own frame, how could you be in a frame that is not your own? If I am moving at a constant velocity I am in an inertial frame. I am obviously in my own frame. If I pass by somebody not moving relative to me then they are in another inertial frame. They also are in there own frame. It is impossible to be in another frame than your own. It would be the same as saying you are moving at different speed than you are moving; it makes no sense.
Ok. First of all, let's follow Colin2B advise and stop using the term "inertial frame" - it is causing confusion, when discussing Galilean relativity. What I ment by this term, is a frame, where the object of interest (e.g. the observer) appears to be at rests, so from now on, I will now only use the term "rest frame".
Let's say you are moving in relation to me. You're at rest in your rest frame (inertial as I said before) and I am at rest in my own rest frame. But at the same time you are in motion in my rest frame and I am at motion in your rest frame. Those things suppose to be well known by someone, who professionally deals with physics..
Quote
Because you can't measure the speed of light in one-directional motion. This means, that you have to "ask" the receiver at which time the light reached it - and if that light was emitted 4ly away from that receiver, it wil "tell", that light reached it 4 years after emissionNot according to the space time diagram.
Yes - according to those both diagrams light emitted 4ly away from the sensor (blue line) is reaching it 4 years after the emission at t=0
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31809;image)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31825;image)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31825;image)
Maybe you're reading all those diagrams incorrectly....
Quote
I didn't say it is constant in relation to all frames.That's to bad, because experimentation shows that the speed of light is c in ALL inertial frames.
"That's to bad, because experimentation shows that the speed of light is c in ALL inertial frames"
It is impossible to measure the speed of light in a moving frame - at least not in one-directional motion of light...
I won't even count, how many times I said it before...
Quote
I said, that it's constant in relation to observer in his own inertial frameThat is not what you drew in your space time diagram!
This is a space time diagram drawn with the spaceship inertial frame at rest. You drew the green line which shows that from the frame of the spaceship the speed of light is 0.5c. That means the speed of light is not constant in the spaceships inertial frame. I'm sorry it that is not what you want but that is what the space time diagram is showing.
Of course it does - why wouldn't it? You say:
Quote
That means the speed of light is not constant in the spaceships inertial frame
And I didn't say it has to. I said that c is NOT constant as long, as light moves in relation to a MOVING frame - and the receiver is here in a MOVING frame...
Quote
I drew the space time diagram based on your postulate (the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames) and you get a travel time of 2.7 years.
So in one diagram the travel time makes no sense and in the other diagram the speed makes no sense.
The problem is in the underlying assumptions you made about the relativity - It doesn't work.
This:
Quote
the speed of light is constant in all inertial framesis not my postulate
This is my postulate:
Quote
c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame
You are just not capable to comprehend the difference
Quote
Sure - you can show it to me. I did it, so I know, what it represents. Yes - I boosted the light according to the velocity of receiver (0,5c) and now 0,5c + 0,5c makes 1c, which is observed in the rest frame of that receiverThis is not difficult! That means in the in the rest frame of the spaceships the speed of light is 0.5 c, which violates your postulate.
It is in 100% consistent with my postulate ("c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame"). Speed of light in relation to a moving frame is NOT constant.
Quote
Let's pretend there was no receiver. Then you would draw the speed of light as c for the spaceship frame. If there is a receiver though, all the sudden the speed of light drops by half? Think about what you are saying, it makes no sense.
Without the receiver speed of light is immeasurable...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/05/2021 23:52:46
Let's say you are moving in relation to me. You're at rest in your rest frame (inertial as I said before) and I am at rest in my own rest frame. But at the same time you are in motion in my rest frame and I am at motion in your rest frame.
Light moves at constant c in relation to me in my own rest frame and it moves at constant c in relation to you in your own rest frame. Light DOESN'T move at constant c in relation to you in my own rest frame and it DOESN'T move at constant c in relation to me in your own rest frame...
It really can't be explained more clearly. If you still won't be able to understand it, then it won't look good for your intelligence...
Post by: Origin on 05/05/2021 00:26:35
This is my postulate:OK.
QuoteQuotec is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame.
Wrong ship frame.jpg (30.78 kB . 600x450 - viewed 5672 times) Laser frame.jpg (22.46 kB . 600x450 - viewed 4112 times)quotePlease tell me which of these space time diagrams is from the spaceships rest frame (what you call it's inertial frame).
Post by: CrazyScientist on 05/05/2021 00:36:22
Please tell me which of these space time diagrams is from the spaceships rest frame (what you call it's inertial frame)This one:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31829;image)
And I won't call it "inertial frame" anymore. Now I'll call it only as the "rest fame" - space ship is at rest
Post by: Origin on 05/05/2021 01:23:23
This one:Then the speed of light is not c in the rest frame of the spaceship. Which violates your postulates.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 05/05/2021 01:43:41
It is not c in relation to moving receiver - so it's in 100% consistent with my postulate.This one:Then the speed of light is not c in the rest frame of the spaceship. Which violates your postulates.
Time at which light is being recorded by the receiver is measured in the rest frame of that receiver - and in that frame light is moving at constant c in relation to receiver at rest
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31831;image)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 05/05/2021 01:48:48
Let's say you are moving in relation to me. You're at rest in your rest frame and I am at rest in my own rest frame. But at the same time you are in motion in my rest frame and I am at motion in your rest frame.
Light moves at constant c in relation to me in my own rest frame and it moves at constant c in relation to you in your own rest frame. Light DOESN'T move at constant c in relation to you in my rest frame and it DOESN'T move at constant c in relation to me in your rest frame
Post by: Origin on 05/05/2021 03:02:43
It is not c in relation to moving receiver - so it's in 100% consistent with my postulate.You're unbelievable. You admit that the space time diagram is from the rest frame of the spaceship with the speed of light at .5c and then say it doesn't violate your postulate. To remind you, you said "c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame". To deflect from this obvious inconsistency you wave your arms about the speed of light relative to the receiver, which has nothing to do with the rest frame of the spaceship. Let me guess, if we remove the receiver from the diagram then the speed of light will snap back to c right?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 05/05/2021 03:08:43
It is not c in relation to moving receiver - so it's in 100% consistent with my postulate.You're unbelievable. You admit that the space time diagram is from the rest frame of the spaceship with the speed of light at .5c and then say it doesn't violate your postulate.
Yes
Quote
To remind you, you said "c is constant in relation to every observer in his own inertial frame".Yes
Quote
To reflect from this obvious inconsistency you wave your arms about the speed of light relative to the receiver, which has nothing to do with the rest frame of the spaceship. Let me guess, if we remove the receiver from the diagram then the speed of light will snap back to c right?No. It will "snap" back to c if the receiver is at rest in relation to spaceship - but it isn't...
Post by: Origin on 05/05/2021 03:26:59
Post by: CrazyScientist on 05/05/2021 03:28:34
Well, I give up. Your intellectual dishonesty makes it hopeless. Enjoy your fantasy.Thanks!
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/05/2021 07:13:34
I've spent some part of this time by researching a variation of the scenario, which was discussed here before - the one with a spaceship moving at 0,5 c from a stationary source of light (laser) towards a stationary receiver 4ly away. Below is a diagram for this scenario:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31809;image)
I figured out, that this scenario will get MUCH more interesting, if I'll make the spaceship to move in opposite direction - that means from the stationary receiver and towards the stationary source of light. Below is a diagram for such scenario:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMGzT3XD/chuu11a.jpg)
As you might notice, I've added as well a second spaceship (red worldlines), that moves in the same direction and with the same speed, as the other one (0,5c) and at t=0 is located right next to the light source. It will be useful to me later, so let's leave it as for now.
For now let's focus on the main reason, which makes this scenario such interesting. You see, it's one of the rare instances, where SRT predicts things that seem to make more logical sense, that things predicted by my own model of relativity. Let's start by comparing the frame of the spaceship, as it is predicted by SRT and the classic Galilean model of relative motion:
Galilean relativity:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTB2s8vr/chu12.jpg)
SRT:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vmsPmtzH/cip2d.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTB2s8vr/chu12.jpg)
SRT:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vmsPmtzH/cip2d.jpg)
If you're smart enough, you should be able to guess, what I mean - but if you're not, then allow me to explain it with diagrams, which were made using my model of constant c in relative motion:
(https://i.postimg.cc/CM9DsLfW/chuu2a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLWBcWpG/chu2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLWBcWpG/chu2.jpg)
For those, who don't know what those diagrams mean - in the difference to SRT, where light is reaching the spaceship before it gets to the receiver at t=4, my model predicts that light will reach the spaceship and the receiver at t=4 SIMULTANEOUSLY (since in the moment of emission at t=0, both objects are located 4ly away from the source).
It won't be a big issue, if the light reaching the receiver will pass next to the spaceship without interactng with it. But what if the light WILL interact with the spaceship before it will reach the receiver? Let's say for example, that there's a polarization filter mounted on the spaceship and light emitted by the source at t=0 will pass through it, before it gets to the receiver.
In such case results predicted by SRT seem to be logical - polarized light will reach the receiver at t=4 (in the frame of source/receiver) and become polarized somewhere on it's way (around t=2,7 in the frame of source/receiver and around t=2,2 in the frame of spaceship):
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMGzT3XD/chuu11a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vmsPmtzH/cip2d.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vmsPmtzH/cip2d.jpg)
However according to my model non-polarized light will reach the filter at t=4, become polarized and reach the receiver at t=6 (since at t=4 spaceship is located 2ly away from the receiver):
(https://i.postimg.cc/B60Znk87/chuu2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NfRCvn6P/chu13.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NfRCvn6P/chu13.jpg)
And because the polarized light is here reaching the receiver with 2 years of delay in comparisment to non-polarized light, my model seems to predict an effect, which has all the characteristics of LIGHT REFRACTION - only not due to different densities of mediums (like the "normal" refraction of light), but due to relative motion of objects between the source and the receiver.
And things will get even crazier for objects moving in opposite direction (towards the receiver). Let's say for example, that in the moment of emission at t=0, spaceship is placed 2ly away from the source and moves at 0,5c towards the receiver. This is what my model predicts in such case:
(https://i.postimg.cc/02RNW621/dups2a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbG1Q2hF/dups22a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbG1Q2hF/dups22a.jpg)
According to my model, light will reach the spaceship (polarization filter) at t=2 and get to the receiver at t=3 - so 1 year earlier than the non-polarized light. I'm well aware that in this case my model of constant c in relative motion predicts things, that seem to contradict our current understanding of light behavior, but I'm trying to be scientifically honest with you and myself, so I won't try to lie, that it doesn't.
However as crazy as it might sound, such idea isn't in fact completely non-sientific and has actually some practical base. Something similar to the light refraction due to relative motion was used in XIX century as a way to explain the STELLAR ABERRATION:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)
Especially similar is the "AETHER DRAG HYPOTHESIS"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis
Of course, there's one main difference beteen such hypothesis and my predictions - my model of constant c in relative motion doesn't require the aether and is based mostly on the well known Doppler's effect on light. Using this concept, it can be said, that due to Doppler's effect, space itself is being "squeezed" (contracted) in front of moving object and "stetched" (expanded) behind it - for object moving at 0,5c, units of space become 2 times shorter in front and 1,5 longer behind it - and because of this process, refraction of light due to relative motion takes place. You can see the contraction and expansion of space due to Dopler's shift on the animation below:
(https://i.ibb.co/NYbscsQ/dh.gif)
But since I've mentioned already about the Doppler's effect on light, I would like to end this subject with something, that will show the advantage of my model over the SRT. I'm sure that most of you heard about the red-shift and the blue-shift of light emitted by a moving source due to Doppler's effect. In shortcut, if the surce of light is moving towards us, wavelenght of light emitted by that source gets shorter in front of it and becomes more blue-ish. If th source is moving away from us, wavelenght of light emitted by it becomes longer, what makes it's color more red-dish.
This is how my model deals with this well known process. Let's say that wave of light emitted by a stationary source has 4 peaks or completes 4 full cycles before it reaches the receiver 4ly away at t=4. If I'll use my model to predict the blue-shift of light observed by the spaceship, which moves at 0,5c towards the source, all we have to do, is to distribute those 4 cycles along the boosted light cone - just like on the diagrams below:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j57dhf99/doppppp.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX6W3qH7/dopa.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX6W3qH7/dopa.jpg)
As you can see, wavelenght of light gets shorter for the spaceship, which is moving towards the light source, what shifts the color of that light towards the blue. At the same time, wavelenght of light gets longer for the receiver, which moves away from the spaceship, what shifts the color of that light towards red - just as it suppose to be.
But now let's try to use the SRT to make something similar. I figured 2 ways of making it - below is the first way:
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZpS5Gxy/dopp11111111111.jpg)
Here 4 cycles are distributed between the source and the receiver, while spaceship observes this light after around 2,7 of those cycles. Problem is that now wavelenght of light emitted by incoming source becomes MUCH longer than for the stationary receiver, what shifts the color of that light towards red - so we end up with something, what is exactly opposite to the process, which we observe in real life...
So maybe I'll try to do the same as in my model and try to "squeeze" those 4 cycles between the source and the incoming spaceship - below is the result:
(https://i.postimg.cc/FK2h1RRx/dopp2.jpg)
It seems, that now it is slightly better - but not good enough... Wavelenght seems to be still LONGER for light emitted by the incoming source (or in the best case, the same as for stationary source/receiver), leading to red-shift or "no-shift" of that light instead of blue-shift, which should be observed in this case...
So in the end, results predicted by my model of relativity seem to make much more sense, that it might seem on the first sight - but like always, judge all of this by yourselves...
Post by: Origin on 15/05/2021 12:36:11
So in the end, results predicted by my model of relativity seem to make much more sense, that it might seem on the first sight - but like always, judge all of this by yourselvesUnfortunately for you, I and others have demonstrated that your idea is wrong. I know that doesn't really make any difference to you, it is more fun to keep pretending you have a valid idea...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/05/2021 13:08:47
So in the end, results predicted by my model of relativity seem to make much more sense, that it might seem on the first sight - but like always, judge all of this by yourselvesUnfortunately for you, I and others have demonstrated that your idea is wrong. I know that doesn't really make any difference to you, it is more fun to keep pretending you have a valid idea...
Unfortunately to me, you demonstrated the inability to understand the difference between "c is constant in all inertial frames" and "c is constant in relation to every observer in it's own rest (inertial) frame"
Come back, when you will be able to comprehend the difference. Bye!
Post by: Origin on 15/05/2021 13:32:40
Unfortunately to me, you demonstrated the inability to understand the difference between "c is constant in all inertial frames" and "c is constant in relation to every observer in it's own rest (inertial) frame"Sorry, that is false, I clearly showed that your idea gives nonsense results and I showed that your space time diagram violates your own idea!
Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh" is kind of pathetic.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/05/2021 13:36:55
Yeah, sure - if this makes you feel better about your own intelect...Unfortunately to me, you demonstrated the inability to understand the difference between "c is constant in all inertial frames" and "c is constant in relation to every observer in it's own rest (inertial) frame"Sorry, that is false, I clearly showed that your idea gives nonsense results and I showed that your space time diagram violates your own idea!
Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh" is kind of pathetic.
But can you please answer me to this simple question: does the diagram below represent the rest frame of the receiver?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=82070.0;attach=31829;image)
Yes or No...
Post by: Halc on 15/05/2021 13:51:05
if this makes you feel better about your own intelect...OP is completely closed to constructive feedback and is resorting to ad-hominem replies in multiple posts.
Topic is locked. Appeal can be made to the mods to reopen it.