0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Am I the only one, who is able to notice an obvious inconsitency between your words and your actions...?
For example in your model the following would be true:.90c + .09c = .99c.90c + .10c = 1.0c.90c + .11c = 1.0cThat 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 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.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 14:37:34Am 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, 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'm trying as hard as I can, to become 100% fluent, but my grammar and vocabulary can be sometimes pretty awful.
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
- because of this, both models will always predict completely different results...
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 15:43:06I'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:Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 15:12:26Moving 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 That 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.
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.
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.
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)?
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 02:42:32This 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.
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
quantum entanglement, which points to absolute simultaneity
or the idea of matter being a probability distribution, what contradicts the deterministic concept of time.
Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion0 =>-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0Where0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial framev - relative velocity of any other framec - constant velocity of light in vacuumBeat this...
Matter being a probability distribution? What theory says that?
Quantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 21:45:10Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0Where0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial framev1,v2 - relative velocities of all frames, excepth the frame of a photonc - constant velocity of light in vacuumBeat this...That is basically meaningless.
Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0Where0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial framev1,v2 - relative velocities of all frames, excepth the frame of a photonc - constant velocity of light in vacuumBeat this...
Quote from: Origin on 11/04/2021 21:55:27Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 21:45:10Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion0 =<-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0Where0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial framev - relative velocity of any other framec - constant velocity of light in vacuumBeat this...That is basically meaningless.not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 21:45:10Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion0 =<-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0Where0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial framev - relative velocity of any other framec - constant velocity of light in vacuumBeat this...That is basically meaningless.
Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion0 =<-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0Where0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial framev - relative velocity of any other framec - constant velocity of light in vacuumBeat this...
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 23:08:08Quote from: Origin on 11/04/2021 21:55:27Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/04/2021 21:45:10Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion0 =<-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0Where0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial framev - relative velocity of any other framec - constant velocity of light in vacuumBeat this...That is basically meaningless.not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0Okay, so what does <---------> mean in mathematics?
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...0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0Better? Help please!