Yeah I really am screwing this up. I will drop out of the conversation.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Are you sure that you know the theory of special relativity?
Before, you have to confirm 8.66 rocketsecond for rocket's speed 0.5 c according to 10 inertsecond; then we may continue to discuss more advanced options.
Yes or no.The answer is no. Everybody agrees the answer is no.
The reason of confusing may be to choise as the reference frame either the Earth or the rocket in the same analysis. We are allowed for one of them (for relativity method).That part was not confusing at all. Both frames of reference are equally valid.
1- According to SR mentality: the photon which emitted from rocket travels the distance(L = 10 proper/inert second x c) for 8.66 rocketsecond.That is not correct. From the earth frame the photon takes 10 seconds to reach earth and from the rockets frame the photon takes 6.666 seconds to reach earth. Neither frame thinks it takes 8.66 seconds.
2- According to LCS mentality:This is where your ideas start to become garbled. In Galilean relativity the speed of light would be added to the velocity of the source, but you said it wasn't, so that is not Galilean relativity. That is one point of confusion.
2.1- Classical / Galilean relativity rules is valid ( like in elementary or medium school).
2.2- We have to use a common reference frame. This frame must be most external frame in universe for light actor. So, it is space or LCS.How does picking a 3rd frame of reference change anything? Now you have the earth frame with a relative velocity to the rocket, a rocket frame with a velocity relative to the earth and a space frame with a relative velocity to the rocket and a relative velocity to the earth.
The all speeds (light's, Earth's, rocket's) must be adapted according to this outer space.
2.3 The emitting/leaving point of the photon is marked on LCS (rocket has passed on this point at emitting moment).It looks like you are adding source velocity to the speed of light which you said you don't do?
2.4 By these conditions, my figures 1 clearly explaines the light kinematics event for your example. Contact time : t = L / (Vu (earth) + c) = 6.666 LCS second.
3- On my figure 2: Another option of 1.5 c velocity event is exhibited. If the Earth goes to opposite direction (toward -x ) of the photon (the earth's speed 0.5 c) ; intermediate distance between the photon and its source will increase with 1.5 c although the photon has the speed c. This relative speed can be called as "hypothetical/pseudo relative speed".Let's just finish exploring option 2.4 before moving on.
Statistics strikes me as a hybrid of science and legal mumble jumble.It is actually mathematics.
Anything is possible and the exceptions to the rule have lower probability. It creates the illusion of being rational but uses fuzzy dice to define valid and invalid. It remains me of defense lawyer trying to walk the fence so his criminal client can escape on a technically. Occam's Razor never assumed science would resort to legal hoaxes.You don't realize that statistics are intimately involved in your life. A large percentage of the amount of your bills are based on statistics. I have used statisticians to help in the analysis of experiments that I ran and found the their analysis really helpful in quantifying the results. I think actual results are more important than your feelings.
Consider the statical model predictions for the corona virus. They were way off. If this had been Relativity and its prediction were that far off, it would have been nipped in the bud. But the statistical virus models still lingers because the hoax approach is very flexible because of pseudo-legal arguments.You are correct that the models are not perfect. Is that because statistics is flawed?
Thanks you allReally? Then why don't you put in a little effort to cut back on the willful ignorance and self delusion?
I really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.
We may think that: The 33.3 % of the distance is traveled by the Earth/observer. While the photon comes toward to the Earth, the Earth also approaches to the photon. The photon that 6.6666 c of the way with its constant velocity c. Please think the process on four dimensions. The Earth is not motionless. While the actors travels the intermediate distance decreasing and the meeting is realized at 6.6666 second. It does not mean that the photon scans the way of 10 c for the time 6.666 second. All of the event and math is logic.I really do not understand your ideas. I thought you said that the speed of light and the speed of the source was a straight addition, now it seems like it isn't, so I am confused.
But SR claims that the photon uses 8.66 rocketsecond for the 10 c way (please look at my former message for math.
You say the laser light is traveling at 1.5c. This claim never be mine.Yes, you did claim that!
One logical affect is the iron core of the earth is rustingIf by logical you mean bat-sh1t crazy, then I agree.
Who is this guy Ocean?Ha ha, isn't spell check great...
The surface of our paper or monitor screen is LCS (Fig. 1). At the moment of Tı (when the intermediate distance is 10 c, the photon will arrive to the observer on the world after 6.66 seconds, because when the photon is approaching to the world, the world is also approaching the photon with a speed of 0.5 c according to LCS. The eye contact with the photon will realize at 6.66666 seconds.I had said the rocket was going .5c, but you prefer to use the frame of the rocket and say the earth is moving towards a motionless rocket at .5c that is fine. Either way you agree that the photon takes 6.6666 sec to travel 10 light sec between the earth and the rocket so the speed is 1.5c. On earth I would measure light at a speed of 1.5c, which is something that has never been seen and completely violates relativity. You state we would measure the speed at c, but that makes no sense and I don't see any explanation of why we would measure the speed at c.
Although the light source goes to the opposite direction (- x) of the photo (Fig. 2), the distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source increases with the speed of c + Vu;I think you made an error, you said, "distance between the photon released from the light source on the earth and its source" the distance between the source and the source is 0, isn't it?
However the photon velocity will always be found as c by the present measurement method/experiment.You keep saying that but you don't say why you think that. You clearly state the speed of the photon relative to earth is 1.5c but when we measure that speed, for some reason it is 1c! Why?
I lost my motivation to share in this forum. I am not sure of the technical training of some of my interlocutors; because we had understanding crises on elementary issues. They also could not manage the crisis and exhibited troll behavior becouse of prioritizing their own catharsis. As a result, this asymmetrical attitudes cannot be maintained. It is enough for me that they get the note that there are those who object to SR.I am an engineer, I took 3 semesters of calculus based physics, I am not even remotely as smart as Einstein. I am not angry, I'm not even annoyed, I just don't see where you have explained why a photon traveling at 1.5c relative to the earth would be measured at only 1c on earth.
Well, it is clear to me by now that any article that not fully support your exact point of view is automatically - pop science.This is a pop science article, but it does support the exact mainstream view.
In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).First and foremost the article does not say or imply that relativity is 'overcome'.
However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.
That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?
To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.
Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?
Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?
But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored
One way to address proof of GodAfter this opening line there were several paragraphs, but there was no proof of God, or even any supporting evidence of God. All that was said is basically if there is a God and spirit, then maybe it works something like this....
Ok. I was clearly overwhelmed and unprepared for this. After better considering my assumptions I recognise my theory was not presented well.If you wanted to fly an airplane, would you read a couple of articles on flying an immediately to out and jump into pilot seat and try to take off? I hope not. You would take flying lessons that would entail learning the theory and have an instructor carefully teach you.
I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.Guess what, your highlight is totally wrong.