1

New Theories / Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory

« on: 30/01/2022 16:53:17 »

And at the point when they were 100 m apart the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 m from the barycenter and the 1 kg one would be 90.90909 m from it, the 1 kg one having moved with a greater velocity than the 10 kg one and having moved a much greater distance than the 10 kg one, thus, they are clearly not interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis.

You're really digging in your heels!  You are bound and determined to learn nothing.  That's fine, if believing in fantasies is what you want then knock your socks off, but I sure don't see the point in wallowing in ignorance. [shrug]

You think I come here to learn? I know how to use Google. This is just something to do to pass the time, I don't care if you agree with what I write or not, but your snide comments sure are annoying so why don't you go annoy someone else. Actually you stay if you want because I'm not going to bother with this anymore, really not at all enjoyable so bye.

2

New Theories / Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory

« on: 30/01/2022 14:58:37 »

Quote from: Halc on Today at 13:54:31
Quote
"You know a barycenter is a real thing, right?"

It's an abstract thing, and one that only applies to orbiting systems, which this isn't. For non-orbiting systems or for systems of more than two masses, it's called the center of mass (CoM), which is real only if you consider abstractions to be real. You can put a small particle near the abstract CoM and the particle will not be necessarily attracted to it, so it isn't real in that sense.

[ băr′ĭ-sĕn′tər ] The center of mass of two or more bodies, USUALLY bodies orbiting around each other, such as the Earth and the Moon

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/barycenter#:~:text=%5B%20băr′ĭ-sĕn′,the%20Earth%20and%20the%20Moon.

So much for your expertise in scientific word definitions, Halc.

Quote
"Well, if there were two unequal masses in outer space and a spring between them was released what do you think would happen? Would they both move an equal distance from the barycenter?"

The smaller mass would move at a higher speed, but not at speeds proportional to the inverse of their masses.

In the frame of the system CoM, suppose the two proper masses of 1 and 10 kg push off on each other and the 10 kg mass moves left at 30000 km/sec. The 1 kg mass will move right at about 228900 km/sec, which is not a 1-10 ratio like their masses. The rate at which either mass increases its distance from the other (the 'relative motion between masses') is about 240600 km/sec which is not the sum of 228900 and 30000. So the statement further up that you find 'obvious' is actually wrong. Don't assert intuitions. Run the numbers. Numbers don't lie.

And at the point when they were 100 m apart the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 m from the barycenter and the 1 kg one would be 90.90909 m from it, the 1 kg one having moved with a greater velocity than the 10 kg one and having moved a much greater distance than the 10 kg one, thus, they are clearly not interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis.

3

New Theories / Re: Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Theory

« on: 30/01/2022 14:25:14 »

Quote
"You know a barycenter is a real thing, right?"

It's an abstract thing, and one that only applies to orbiting systems, which this isn't. For non-orbiting systems or for systems of more than two masses, it's called the center of mass (CoM), which is real only if you consider abstractions to be real. You can put a small particle near the abstract CoM and the particle will not be necessarily attracted to it, so it isn't real in that sense.

[ băr′ĭ-sĕn′tər ] The center of mass of two or more bodies, USUALLY bodies orbiting around each other, such as the Earth and the Moon

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/barycenter#:~:text=%5B%20băr′ĭ-sĕn′,the%20Earth%20and%20the%20Moon.

So much for your expertise in scientific word definitions, Halc.

4

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 30/01/2022 13:05:35 »

No, YOU'RE talking about relative velocity between two objects,

This thread is about velocity, but I guess you forgot.  Now you want to talk about acceleration.

I'm talking about relative motion based on mass.

Now you want to talk about velocity again.  Relative motion is not based on mass.

Did the two objects start moving in opposite directions instantly and with equal velocity relative to the barycenter between them?

It does not matter, one or both objects could have accelerated at any rate in the past it is immaterial.

What I stated is exactly what would happen if equal force was applied to both objects in opposite directions with no source of friction or resistance.

Now you want to talk about forces.  Yes a given force will accelerate different mass at different rates.  F=ma.

Oh I didn't realize I had to start a new thread for every word. Maybe I should have called it the Mass Velocity Force Rotation Motion Kinetic Energy Momentum Relativity Acceleration Gravity Light Theory. Would that make you happy?

5

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 30/01/2022 09:15:53 »

People will say "but uniform motion does not involve accelerating so it would be equally interchangeable between objects of different mass". Maybe, but maybe not. To get to that uniform motion, one had more kinetic energy added to it than the other. A 10 kg mass moving away at 100 m/s from the same reference object that a 1 kg mass is also moving away from at the same velocity in the opposite direction has more stored kinetic energy than the 1 kg mass. Can objects of equal mass, one with no kinetic energy stored and the other with a certain amount stored be considered equally in motion relative to each other? I contend that they cannot, there is an asymmetry so how can they be considered equal?

 If there are two equal mass objects with rocket engines on them and rocket fuel is added to one and it fires the rocket until all fuel is consumed, both objects would then have equal mass but one would have the kinetic energy added by that fuel burn. Could you then say that both objects are identical because they are moving apart at the same relative velocity? There is clearly an asymmetry, one has momentum and kinetic energy and the other doesn't so they cannot be considered equal. The rocket that did not burn fuel could be considered to be moving away from the one that did at the same velocity but would it have momentum and kinetic energy? Logically it would not, it didn't do anything, it just sat there. Stored energy is a real thing, it can't just be disregarded, so the two objects cannot be considered equal, the one with stored kinetic energy is in motion, the other is not, even though they may appear equally in motion relative to each other.

6

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 30/01/2022 08:31:55 »

It's obvious that it would take 10 times as much energy or force to move a 10 kg object the same distance as a 1 kg object, so why should they be given equal relative motion? If they move apart 100 m then isn't it logical that the 10 kg object should be regarded as having moved 9.090909 m and the 1 kg object 90.90909 m?

No that would be absurd.  We are talking about relative velocity between objects.  It takes exactly the same amount of force to maintain the velocity of a 10 ton object as it does a 1 gram object.  They both require 0.0N to maintain their velocities.

No, YOU'RE talking about relative velocity between two objects, I'm talking about relative motion based on mass. Did the two objects start moving in opposite directions instantly and with equal velocity relative to the barycenter between them? What I stated is exactly what would happen if equal force was applied to both objects in opposite directions with no source of friction or resistance. By the time the distance between them was 100 m, the 10 kg one would be 9.090909 cm from their barycenter and the 1 kg object would be 90.90909 cm from it. Let's see you refute that.

7

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 30/01/2022 08:26:30 »

Because the velocity is the time and distance between the two points but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why.

I'd like to see a source that supports this claim.

Uh, you need a source for something which is obvious? You know a barycenter is a real thing, right? Well, if there were two unequal masses in outer space and a spring between them was released what do you think would happen? Would they both move an equal distance from the barycenter? Unless your answer is yes, no source is required, much like no source is required for me stating that the sky is blue, though for you, I guess i should specify when there are no clouds and it's noon. If you claim that the statement I just made is false then YOU are the one who would require a source, because then you're statement would be in contradiction to the established laws of physics, not mine. My source is the established laws of physics? Just Google "laws of physics". Do you want me to provide the URL for Google?

8

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 29/01/2022 20:54:02 »

so why should they be given equal relative motion?

Because it's exactly as far from A to B as it is from B to A.
So, when you write stuff like  this, and then say

Granted the velocity would be the same, but the relative motion would not.

It looks like you are trolling.
Because the time taken is the same, and the velocity is the same, but somehow, you think the distance (which you can calculate by multiplying the same velocity by the same time) is different.

Why don't you stop this nonsense?

Because the velocity is the time and distance between the two points but the relative motion is split at the barycenter into two sections, that's why. Now Why don't you stop this nonsense of critiquing things which are apparently beyond your level of comprehension?

9

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 29/01/2022 18:36:59 »

Here is a comment about the illusion of relative motion, which is in the same vein as the illusion of velocity, it shows how wrong assumptions can be made in the subject of relativity. I mentioned something about this earlier but I was thinking about again just now so thought I would write a new comment about it.

Seems to me that two objects of very different masses shouldn't really be considered interchangeable as to mutual motion. It's obvious that it would take 10 times as much energy or force to move a 10 kg object the same distance as a 1 kg object, so why should they be given equal relative motion? If they move apart 100 m then isn't it logical that the 10 kg object should be regarded as having moved 9.090909 m and the 1 kg object 90.90909 m? Granted the velocity between the two objects would be the same, but the relative share of the distance between the two objects would not. Two objects moving apart, regardless of how it came about, can be viewed as the two spaces between the barycenter and each object both increasing while maintaining the same ratio. I think Einstein overlooked that important concept.

 Now you might ask what if a planet and a rocket are involved? The planet's share off the distance would be practically nil in that case and couldn't even be calculated with accuracy. Such are the problems that can arise in working with relative motion, sometimes it's essentially a stationary frame and a moving one, the mismatch in mass is so extreme. The speed of light would be constant in relation to the center of mass, like the earth, not necessarily the surface thereof, if it's in rotation. Why? because it would have to be constant in relation to different levels of the surface, and even underground levels, all of which would be moving at different angular velocities, thus, light would have no one constant reference at all. Looking at light at sea level from the top of a mountain would present some simultaneity problems, even though there was seemingly only a single frame, the ground at sea level would not actually be in relative motion to the mountaintop and yet light would seem to move at different rates.

10

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 29/01/2022 18:05:56 »

Patience, are you kidding? He insults me regularly. You know, like you.

This is a science site and your pseudoscience attitude is insulting.  It's also insulting to take time to help you understand a concept and have you ignore it.  Purposely or not you are trolling so don't be surprised to be treated like a troll.

You too huh?

11

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 28/01/2022 19:13:08 »

It was designed to detect motion relative to the medium (aether) in any direction.

Excellent post, too bad Centra won't read it with an open mind, I have no doubt many of the members and guests will however.  I admire your patience with posters like Centra, keep up the good work.

Patience, are you kidding? He insults me regularly. You know, like you.

12

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 28/01/2022 19:11:40 »

That last post was actually somewhat informative, Halc, which is a nice change from the usual insulting. As a brief aside from relativity, something I find interesting involving rotation is that to equal earth's gravitational acceleration of 9.807 m/sē with rotation all that's required is a 10 m diameter and an angular velocity of 13.374 rpm. That's slow, over 4 seconds per rotation, you could easily achieve that by manually pushing it around. It seems like earth gravity is strong when you think of a boulder or something heavy like that but it's surprisingly weak if you look at it as the equivalent of centrifugal force.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: can gravity be a push instead of a pull?

« on: 27/01/2022 21:34:19 »

I don't think there are particles being shot out, no, because gravity affects the inside of objects, not just the outer surface, and it can't be shielded, you would be able to shield particles.
 

14

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 27/01/2022 20:36:53 »

The frame of reference would be the earth's surface.

Excellent! You're talking about the rotating frame. Yes, in that frame, it takes an hour to go 100 km in your car. In that frame, Neptune moves faster than c, and light takes longer to go from SF to NY than the other way around (assuming a reasonably straight path and not one that goes the long way around). Such is a known property of rotating frames. Einstein wasn't considering a rotating frame in the sections at which we've been looking. So for instance, relative to the inertial frame of Earth, your eastbound (near the equator) car really does go east at 1100 mph (sorry, I was using metric before), and the westbound car goes -900 mph westward, and thus isn't really westbound, is it?

With relativity discussions, confusion results from omitting frame references. You may think they're implied, but mistakes are made by assuming distances, durations, times, and locations are the same from one frame to the next. The references are absolutely necessary to make unambiguous statements.
So if you're discussing some value (say distance between events), it matters whether you're using the S coordinate system or the R coordinate system to express that distance. Without the reference, all you'll get is annoying replies saying that your statements lack meaning.

I see, I didn't realize I was writing an article in Scientic American. Just kidding, I'll try to be more specific. Anyway, point being, on the earth's surface you don't get the swimming up and down a river effect, so Michelson's experiment would not show earth rotation effects on light, but would it show effects from earth's orbit around the sun? If there was aether, yes, because it would be the equivalent of the river bank. So Michelson did prove a lack of aether but not a lack of Sagnac effect from earth's rotation.

Apparently you agree that said Sagnac effect exists, but you explain it as a relativity consistent effect because it involves a rotating frame. It doesn't actually confirm relativity, it just doesn't necessarily disprove it either, Einstein just gave himself an out by saying that rotating frames are not inertial. I can agree with that, because an observer on a rotating disk could tell if it was rotating or not, by centrifugal force.

Now there's the conundrum of why a rotating frame can be confirmed to be in rotation like that, what is it in rotation relative to? The same would apply to binary stars in orbit with each other, what are they rotating in relation to? Presumably an imaginary point between them called the barycenter, but how is the barycenter a stationary reference? It seems counter to relativity theory. If there are two equal disks with the same axis, with a space between the two, what is the difference between one being stationary and the other rotating and the other way around, or both rotating in opposite directions at equal angular velocity?

The only difference between the two disk frames is that an observer on one would perceive centrifugal force and one on the other would not. What made them different in that way? The use of energy to create force to produce rotational motion in one. Kinetic energy had been stored in the disk as inertial motion. The disk would continue to rotate, assuming no external friction or resistance, until that kinetic energy was transferred to another mass by exerting a force moving it outward from a position close to the axis to one farther away from it.

15

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 27/01/2022 19:20:03 »

But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.

What effect did the rotation of the Earth have on their experiment?

None, because why would it? The beam gained maybe 0.00001 nanosecond going one way and then lost the same amount when it bounced back the other way.

16

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 27/01/2022 18:56:51 »

I am travelling at less than a meter per second relative to the rotating frame of my laptop. Relative to the inertial frame of Earth, I travel 100 km in about 5 minutes. Relative to the sun, it takes about 3 seconds to go that far. Relative to the galaxy, it takes under half a second. But your statement above lacks a frame reference, hence is still meaningless, and not something with which I can agree.

The frame of reference would be the earth's surface. I know it's surprising that a person would be driving on the earth's surface but so it is, forgive me for not specifying that it wasn't driving on a cloud.

17

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 27/01/2022 18:34:44 »

I agree with none of the above. It all lacks frame references, and thus is no more than word salad.
Despite my continued pointing out of this error, you continue to make it and post meaningless stuff such as this:

So it's your contention that this is not true? You think you really would be traveling 100 miles in less that 7 minutes?

When you drive West traveling at 100 mph you're not traveling at 1100 mph due to the earth rotating eastward at approximately 1000 mph, and going East you're not traveling at 900 mph. It does not take you 6.66 minutes to drive 100 miles East and 5.45 minutes to drive 100 miles West.

 

18

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 27/01/2022 14:41:45 »

I think Einstein wrote the moving rod thing wrong by mistake, because this quote from a page about SR says the exact opposite of what he wrote.

If, for example, a light signal bounces between ends A and B of a rod, an observer at rest on the rod judges the traversal times to be equal. But that is not so for an observer who judges the rod to move in the direction of A to B. For that observer, the light signal traversing from A to B needs more time to catch the fleeing end B; and the light signal traversing from B to A requires less time to meet the approaching end A. This disagreement immediately leads to the two observer's differing judgments concerning the simultaneity of the events at A and B; that is, to the relativity of simultaneity.

https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/magnet_and_conductor/index.html

Einstein said observers WITH the rod, ie; "at rest" in regard to it, would NOT judge the traversal times to be equal.

19

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 27/01/2022 14:38:55 »

BUT it's not analogous to speed on the rotating earth.

Nobody said it was.
The MM experiment is designed to look at whether the Earth is moving through the ether.
And the analogy between swimmers on a moving river and light in a moving ether is quite good.
 The problem is that you were looking at the average speed measured WRT the water, when you should have been looking  at the average speed measured WRT the ground.

I see, well,  I guess they proved there's no aether then huh? But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.

20

New Theories / Re: The Illusion of Velocity Theory

« on: 27/01/2022 06:55:28 »

If you read the paper, the clocks were not synchronized until after the rod was moving, and then they were synchronized to local clocks stationary in the first frame. In other words, they looked 'out the window' and set each clock to the value they saw going by just then. This sort of syncs them to the first frame, not to the frame of the rod. I say 'sort of' because while both clocks A and B will always read the same value relative to the original frame, they will not continue to read the same value as the clocks they pass by. They will fall behind them.

I see what you mean in the first part of that quote, Einstein didn't actually say they were synchronized with the stationary clocks before starting to move. Einstein was not very clear in his description so it was easy to misinterpret. However I don't get the rest of the quote. Whenever they were synchronized to the stationary clocks, the hands still moved at the same rate on clocks A and B, so they still should have shown the same interval for the beams in each direction.

Einstein was saying, I presume, that the moving observers would see two different times showing on both moving clocks while the stationary observers would see the same times on both. That would be the reverse of what I saw in a video about a rocket with beams going to each end from the middle. It said the stationary observer would see different times on both clocks at each end while the moving observers would see the same times. So in the article it was simply changed around from that, the moving observers saw them with different times and the stationary observers saw them with the same times. I'll have to think this over some more before I comment further on it.