0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
First I will give my definition of "velocity": the distance a thing travels in a certain time in a certain inertial frame. Obviously I couldn't measure the velocity of a baseball being thrown from a pitcher to a catcher on a ball field from a moving car. How would I do that? I could obviously only do it on the ball field.
A similar situation occurs when I try to measure the velocity of light from a laser to a target, both being mounted on posts on the ground a certain distance apart, from a rocket traveling past them at, let's say, 150,000 km/s, for instance. Neither the laser nor the target are on the moving rocket so they do not have a particular velocity in the inertial frame of the rocket. Were I to make a rough estimate of the velocity of the laser beam, based merely on visual observation, I might think that it was moving at a velocity of only 150,000 km/s, because I and the rocket were moving at 150,000 km/s in the same direction. I might make the mistake of subtracting the velocity of the beam from my own velocity. That would be an example of "the illusion of velocity".If the rocket were traveling in a direction opposite to the direction of the laser beam, I might make the mistake of adding my own velocity to that of the laser beam, concluding that its velocity was 450,000 km/s. That would be another example of "the illusion of velocity".The laser beam actually had no particular velocity relative to me or the rocket, because it neither originated nor terminated in the rocket, and traveled no distance therein over any period of time therein, therefore it had no velocity in the rocket which could be measured in any way, it was an "illusion of velocity", if you will.
To further expound on the Illusion of Velocity Theory, one might make the naive assumption that the illusory perception of light moving faster or slower than 300,00 km/s should require some kind of manipulation of, say, time and/or distance in one or the other inertial frames of reference.
Quote from: Centra on 14/01/2022 16:47:09To further expound on the Illusion of Velocity Theory, one might make the naive assumption that the illusory perception of light moving faster or slower than 300,00 km/s should require some kind of manipulation of, say, time and/or distance in one or the other inertial frames of reference.I see, you are not here it engage in a discussion you are just here to stand on your soap box and make unsubstantiated claims. Well have fun, I guess....
I'm just hoping that you (Centra) will recognise that your ideas aren't completely silly, they're OK and could quite possibly be developed into a good theory. However, it's not useful and something like this has already been done. It's always worth looking to see what has already been done before trying to present a new theory and it is always worth asking if the new theory will actually be useful.Best Wishes.
A theory makes predictions, and lacking the mathematics, this presumably seems to make no different predictions as Newton's falsified model. Lacking those predictions, it isn't a theory, just a soapbox blog.
I'm sure at the moment, but I saw a video of an old black and white science education film and it said that the speed was based on the area, I'll have to try to find it again.
You are probably thinking of Keplerís 2nd law ďA line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of timeĒ
While the phase shift in the Sagnac effect is often expressed using the enclosed area as a factor, our results indicate that the length and speed of the moving fiber are the fundamental factors, rather than the enclosed area...The travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform. In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c2.Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time differencebetween counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiberRuyong Wang, Zi Zhengb, Aiping Yaob, Dean Langley
Take your 300,000 km object, moving along its length as you describe. There is one observer at one end with both an emitter and detector, and just a mirror at the other end. No different clocks to worry about synchronizing. If the object (rocket) is stationary, it takes light one second to go each way, so a 2-second round trip. If it is moving at half light speed, it takes 2 seconds to get to the mirror and 2/3 seconds to get back for an elapsed time of not 2, but 2.66 seconds. By noting the different time it takes for light to make the round trip, one can detect absolute motion.
But you gave it one in your description above, so you contradict yourself. You said it was 150,000 one way and 450,000 the other way.
"based merely on visual observation, I might think that it was moving at a velocity of only 150,000 km/s
I might make the mistake of adding my own velocity to that of the laser beam, concluding that its velocity was 450,000 km/s.
You said it was 150,000 one way and 450,000 the other way.
I don't expect my theory to be useful for anything
It's not a theory, but you are right about it not being useful.
But didn't you see the word "theory" in the title?
That's your clue that it's a theory.
Okay, lay down on the coach.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
...that is to say a value that is approximately ten times smaller, according to this last theory than according to the preceding one. The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention with the classical theory and also with the result provided by this experiment.
Under that definition, Einstein's "theories" would not be theories.
Not a good start... What you have described is speed, not velocity. Velocity has direction too.The speed can easily be measured from either frame, they just won't be the same.