Post by: dressed.scientist on 09/07/2018 10:21:51
(1) The Sagnac Effect shows us that moving towards light does create an effect that light has traveled faster than c. And moving away from the light beam means that light will come slower than c. This shows that some so called "relativistic effects" aren't real, but caused by our inability to measure reality, since we're mostly using light to measure light.
----- The Hafele-Keating experiment actually refuted relativity. It's the experiment where you put two synchronized clocks on the airplanes and send them around the world in the opposite directions. It can also be done with one clock having two trips (that's how it was done originally), but let's assume this time there were 2 synchronized clocks. When the atomic clocks come back to the home base, what should we expect?
According to the theory of relativity, where only the relative speed matters, both clocks should show exactly the same time dilation. Because the clocks moved at the same speed relative to the reference point on the planet surface. But if relativity is wrong and there actually exists a preferred reference frame, then the airplane moving westwards should have a longer delay than the one moving eastwards. So, what the experiment showed? That relative speed is irrelevant. The clock going westwards had a higher time dilation. Totally consistent with its higher absolute speed, regardless of its relative speed.
(2) GPS is often said to confirm relativity. But actually, it refutes it. What GPS shows is that we have to compensate clocks for the ABSOLUTE rotational speed. Nothing else. There are no additional "relativistic" compensations. In fact, we can use GPS to measure how fast the objects move on the surface. If we had to take into account the relativistic effects, that would be impossible, since to make the calculations we should know the object's speed beforehand. But since the relative speed is irrelevant to time dilation, we can use GPS to calculate both the position and speed of objects on the surface (or in the air).
(3) Photons always travel at the same speed in vacuum. Whether you launch them from a rocket or a planet, in any arbitrary direction, they always travel at the same speed. This means that all the photons anywhere in the universe use the same reference frame. That is our preferred reference frame. It's probably the fabric of space.
(4) Muon particles survival. There are some who claim that survival of the muons passing through Earth's atmosphere supports the theory of relativity. That's not true. Relativity means that muons would surivive if they were stationary and the Earth was moving at 0.99c towards them. But did anyone ever made such an experiment? Nope. We only have one sided experiment where the muons travel at 0.99c. So by using the Ockham's Razor and choosing the simpler explanation, the muon experiment only shows that objects moving very fast relative to the fabric of space have their clocks going slower. It has nothing to do with their relative speed to Earth or the Moon. It has something to do with their absolute speed in space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2018 10:28:28
There are several experiments that refute special relativity
https://xkcd.com/285/
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/07/2018 12:52:20
Post by: dressed.scientist on 09/07/2018 15:12:41
Really? We can't? It's impossible? Wow!
That sounds very dogmatic. Almost religious. You must have made all the possible experiments in the universe and now know everything, right?
Except you can't even explain how Hafele-Keating experiment failed with relative speeds, but worked fine with absolute speeds. Because rotational speed by its nature is absolute. Axis of rotation gives you the absolute reference frame, unless you imagine that entire universe is rotating in the opposite direction. Which can easily be refuted by taking another gyro with the opposite rotation, in which case the universe can't rotate in two opposite directions at the same time. Which confirms that rotational motion is absolute. And in those conditions, we've confirmed that cutting the fabric of space, and not the relative speed, is what causes time dilation and other speed-related effects.
BTW, can you explain how can light move relative to the SAME reference frame anywhere in the universe? Do you, in your infinite wisdom, have an explanation for that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2018 17:31:25
That sounds very dogmatic. Almost religious.
There are several experiments that refute special relativityThat looks very dogmatic, almost religious.
You still haven't cited evidence.
Strictly speaking, it's true- but trivially so. Special relativity doesn't apply to accelerating experiments or ones in a gravitational field. That's what General relativity is for.
I presume you meant general relativity, because , otherwise, the thread's just silly.
Post by: Janus on 09/07/2018 17:50:39
This would be only true if the reference point was in an inertial frame. The dependence on relative speed alone only holds if you are making your observation from an inertial frame. SR makes different claims as to what should be measured from non-inertial frames. The Planes and the surface clock in this experiment were in three different non-inertial frames, Thus you need to use the SR predictions for those conditions.
----- The Hafele-Keating experiment actually refuted relativity. It's the experiment where you put two synchronized clocks on the airplanes and send them around the world in the opposite directions. It can also be done with one clock having two trips (that's how it was done originally), but let's assume this time there were 2 synchronized clocks. When the atomic clocks come back to the home base, what should we expect?
According to the theory of relativity, where only the relative speed matters, both clocks should show exactly the same time dilation. Because the clocks moved at the same speed relative to the reference point on the planet surface.
Quote
But if relativity is wrong and there actually exists a preferred reference frame, then the airplane moving westwards should have a longer delay than the one moving eastwards. So, what the experiment showed? That relative speed is irrelevant. The clock going westwards had a higher time dilation. Totally consistent with its higher absolute speed, regardless of its relative speed.Relativity, applied correctly, does predict the results measured by in the experiment. You are making a straw-man argument by not accounting for how Relativity deals with non-inertial frames. In addition, the predictions matched numerically and not just in some vague manner. To claim that the results were due to some absolute speeds, you would have to supply the frame of absolute rest against which these speeds are measured. (keeping in mind that the Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the galaxy,etc.), and then actually show the math that predicts the numerical results of the experiment. Just saying that one clock would run slower than another isn't enough, you have to produce the numbers.
Quote
The accuracy of GPS argues against your absolute speed hypothesis. GPS satellites are in orbit circling the Earth. But the Earth also orbits the Sun, and the Sun orbits the Galaxy. You would have to take all of these various velocities into account if working from an absolute speed position. Thus while a GPS satellite has a fixed speed relative to the center of the Earth, it would not have one relative to the Sun as its Earth's orbital speed would be added or subtracted from the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun, or depending on its orbit, the orbital speed of the Sun around the galaxy.
(2) GPS is often said to confirm relativity. But actually, it refutes it. What GPS shows is that we have to compensate clocks for the ABSOLUTE rotational speed. Nothing else. There are no additional "relativistic" compensations. In fact, we can use GPS to measure how fast the objects move on the surface. If we had to take into account the relativistic effects, that would be impossible, since to make the calculations we should know the object's speed beforehand. But since the relative speed is irrelevant to time dilation, we can use GPS to calculate both the position and speed of objects on the surface (or in the air).
The point is that the GPS satelllite's "absolute" speed would be constantly changing over the course of an orbit, as would its time dilation. We see now such variation.
Quote
Photons all travel at 299792458 m/s in a vacuum relative to any inertial reference frame as measured from that reference frame. So if I am in an inertial reference frame and you are in an inertial frame traveling at 299,000,000 m/s relative to me, as measured by either of us, then:
(3) Photons always travel at the same speed in vacuum. Whether you launch them from a rocket or a planet, in any arbitrary direction, they always travel at the same speed. This means that all the photons anywhere in the universe use the same reference frame. That is our preferred reference frame. It's probably the fabric of space.
I will measure a photon as moving at 299,792,458 m/s relative to myself and moving at 792,458 m/s with respect to you.
You will measure that same photon as moving at 299,792,458 m/s relative to yourself and moving at 792,458 m/s with respect to me.
This is hardly conducive to Photons being the basis for an absolute reference frame. If we try to assign the frame of "absolute rest" as being the one at which light travels at 299,792,458 m/s with respect to, then each of us will claim that our inertial frame is the rest frame and the other frame in motion with respect to it. You can't very well have an "absolute" rest frame that no one can agree upon.
Quote
except that it is not the simplest explanation in that such observations have to be considered in conjunction with all other observations. While we can't accelerate the Earth by a significant fraction of c, we can accelerate particles up to nearly c with particle accelerators. And, as I pointed out above, If you assume an absolute frame of rest, then the Earth, due to its orbital motion, has to varying its speed relative to this frame ( unless you want to claim a heliocentric universe).
(4) Muon particles survival. There are some who claim that survival of the muons passing through Earth's atmosphere supports the theory of relativity. That's not true. Relativity means that muons would surivive if they were stationary and the Earth was moving at 0.99c towards them. But did anyone ever made such an experiment? Nope. We only have one sided experiment where the muons travel at 0.99c. So by using the Ockham's Razor and choosing the simpler explanation, the muon experiment only shows that objects moving very fast relative to the fabric of space have their clocks going slower. It has nothing to do with their relative speed to Earth or the Moon. It has something to do with their absolute speed in space.
Since this varying velocity would be added to the lab frame of the accelerator, it would also effect the final absolute speed of the particles. In effect, it would mean that the behavior of accelerators around the world would vary depending on their respective orientation, the time of day or year, etc. We see no such variations.
Post by: Janus on 09/07/2018 18:09:35
SR can deal with acceleration (though not gravity), you just have to know what you are doing. The easiest way to deal with acceleration in SR is to simply work everything out from an inertial frame. It is more difficult to work it out from within the accelerating frame, as you can't just use the Lorentz transformations alone like you can from an inertial frame.That sounds very dogmatic. Almost religious.There are several experiments that refute special relativityThat looks very dogmatic, almost religious.
You still haven't cited evidence.
Strictly speaking, it's true- but trivially so. Special relativity doesn't apply to accelerating experiments or ones in a gravitational field. That's what General relativity is for.
And except as an exercise to show that the end results of an experiment would be the same if viewed from the accelerating frame as if viewed from the inertial frame, it usually isn't worth the effort.
Quote
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/07/2018 18:12:13
Post by: dressed.scientist on 10/07/2018 03:35:32
@dressed.scientist Take note of what others have said. I have been down the road of the photon as the source of an absolute frame. I always have to satisfy myself about such concepts. I don't just take other people's word for it. It can't work to think in these terms. I have been around that loop. It seems to be an attractive proposition at first glance. When you pursue it you then understand just why it falls down. By all means pursue that road but don't just end up deceiving yourself
Well, if you have a precise article showing that photons aren't moving relative to a single absolute frame, I'd like to read it. Or an experiment that shows that muons moving towards Earth equals Earth moving towards muons. Because from the explanations I've read so far about relativity, when the top relativists don't know the answer, they end up doing mumbo-jumbo that doesn't explain anything. Like octopuses they just throw some ink into the water and escape.
There was a time I thought "oh, that's just too complicated, so it must be true". But eventually after studying the articles it turned out those constructs just don't hold water.
For example, Einstein suggested that if you put one clock at the North pole, and another on equator, they will have different time dilation and eventually show different time. Which I believe is correct. But nobody did that experiment. Because relativists very soon figured out it would refute relativity. You see..... those two clocks have no relative speed. Their distance is always the same. Their relative speed is zero. And yet, their passage of time is different. Showing that relative speed is irrelevant and only absolute speed of cutting the fabric of space matters. Clock on the equator travels faster, cuts more space, and hence it would go slower (after compensating for the gravitational effect).
There's tons and tons of stuff that refutes relativity. The only wrong thing in the theory of relativity is - relativity.
Post by: chiralSPO on 10/07/2018 04:35:56
Post by: Colin2B on 10/07/2018 09:33:27
@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!@dressed.scientist - the comment from @chiralSPO is very important because it highlights a misunderstanding you have of relativity. Einstien never said there is no absolute frame, just that you can’t detect it. Light cannot be used as an absolute frame because it cannot be used to calculate your speed relative to anything else.
As @jeffreyH said, you need to understand relativity before you can criticise it properly and unfortunately - as shown by @Janus - your understanding is poor. I suspect you are just repeating things you have read on other sites rather than understanding what you are actually saying. In order to show you really understand you need to show you can discuss the points made by @Janus
Post by: dressed.scientist on 10/07/2018 11:38:21
@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!
Around 390 km/s, thanks for asking.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 10/07/2018 11:52:25
@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!@dressed.scientist - the comment from @chiralSPO is very important because it highlights a misunderstanding you have of relativity. Einstien never said there is no absolute frame, just that you can’t detect it. Light cannot be used as an absolute frame because it cannot be used to calculate your speed relative to anything else.
As @jeffreyH said, you need to understand relativity before you can criticise it properly and unfortunately - as shown by @Janus - your understanding is poor. I suspect you are just repeating things you have read on other sites rather than understanding what you are actually saying. In order to show you really understand you need to show you can discuss the points made by @Janus
Nope, Einstein was convinced that there's no absolute frame. He was also convinced that nothing can go faster than light. And he died believing in that. He invented fantasy concepts like wormholes and hidden local variables in order to explain quantum entanglement without violating the speed of light.
John Steward Bell has refuted Einstein and proven that neither local variables nor wormholes are explaining quantum entanglement and that particles must somehow communicate faster than light in order for q.e. to work. This was an amazing discovery, but because it crashed all the Einstein's beliefs, even today John Bell is basically unknown, while failed Einstein's concepts like wormholes are still advertised as if they were true.
Experiments have proven that something can be faster than light and influence events outside of the event horizon, even though the influence is randomized and cannot be used for sensible communication. But it's still communication, albeit random, because it affects the outcome of another process outside of the event horizon.
But there's still strong propaganda that is making Einstein an artificial deity. And this makes me very angry. The false concept of relativity is stalling the advance of science. We should be focusing our money on detecting the underlying fabric of space, which is the absolute reference frame. We can call it "fabric of space" or a specific "quantum field" or whatever, but it's obvious that it exits. And if we find a way to detect it, that will be a huge breakthrough in physics.
But as long as physicists are discouraged from research because "Einstein said everything is relative and Einstein is God" and money for such research is blocked, we won't find it. Relativists are deliberately stalling the science to protect their god. Why don't they just erect the Church of Einstein, go pray there every day, and leave the rest of the science alone. Science needs research not dogmas.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 10/07/2018 12:00:47
Special relativity doesn't apply to accelerating experiments or ones in a gravitational field. That's what General relativity is for.
As Janus already said, you can compensate for gravity and acceleration and still use SR for the velocity-based time-dilation. Which is exactly what they do for GPS and everything else. But with a twist. They omit "relativity" from SR. They use just the absolute rotational speed. And rotational speed is absolute, think about it and you'll see why. So... GPS refutes relativity.
In the Hafele-Keating experiment they also compensated for gravity and curvature, but it didn't help. The numbers were still off. "Einstein's Special Relativity" didn't work until they moved the observer from the military base on the surface, to the axis in center of the Earth. Then it worked. Because they eliminated relativity. From the center of the Earth the airplanes were moving at different absolute speeds (but not relative to the military base). Proving that absolute speed matters, not relative.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2018 13:16:06
OK, so I could drill a hole through the Earth from where you are to where they did the Michelson Morley experiment and stretch a piece of string through it. I could tie one end to their observatory, and the other end to your chair.@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!
Around 390 km/s, thanks for asking.
And I could measure that string.
Its length doesn't change, so you are stationary WRT the MM experiment.
So, the MM experiment must also have been travelling at 390 Km/sec (or thereabouts) WRT this fixed reference field.
So how come the fringes didn't move?
Post by: dressed.scientist on 10/07/2018 13:31:08
So, the MM experiment must also have been travelling at 390 Km/sec (or thereabouts) WRT this fixed reference field.
So how come the fringes didn't move?
Sure, our entire planet is moving at 390 km/sec.
But any experiment where you measure two-way speed of light cannot be used as a reference.
The speed of light must be measured only one-way and using much better equipment than they used 100 years ago.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2018 13:43:04
using much better equipment than they used 100 years ago.Why?
If we were doing 400 km/s their equipment would have spotted it.
However, subsequent refinements of the experiment have ruled out movement through the reference frame at any speed faster than about 1 part in 10^17 of the speed of light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments
Post by: Kryptid on 10/07/2018 15:02:32
Around 390 km/s, thanks for asking.
How did you arrive at this number?
Post by: dressed.scientist on 10/07/2018 15:07:44
using much better equipment than they used 100 years ago.Why?
If we were doing 400 km/s their equipment would have spotted it.
However, subsequent refinements of the experiment have ruled out movement through the reference frame at any speed faster than about 1 part in 10^17 of the speed of light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments
But we ARE moving at around 400 km/s relative to the CMB rest frame. Our planet, along with our solar system, along with our galaxy, along with our galaxy cluster. We're traveling through space at high speed. Maybe it doesn't sound fast compared to light, but it's a decent speed.
We didn't measure it because we're measuring the two-way speed of light. We need to compare two one-way speeds of light.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 10/07/2018 15:17:15
How did you arrive at this number?
How did I get to that number? It's our speed in the universe relative to the CMB rest frame. Which means it's our speed relative to photons. And photons know what absolute speed in vacuum is. Just for the sake of correctness, it's around 368 km/sec. That's our absolute speed in space.
Post by: chiralSPO on 10/07/2018 17:07:09
Post by: Janus on 10/07/2018 17:27:03
For example, Einstein suggested that if you put one clock at the North pole, and another on equator, they will have different time dilation and eventually show different time. Which I believe is correct. But nobody did that experiment. Because relativists very soon figured out it would refute relativity. You see..... those two clocks have no relative speed. Their distance is always the same. Their relative speed is zero. And yet, their passage of time is different. Showing that relative speed is irrelevant and only absolute speed of cutting the fabric of space matters. Clock on the equator travels faster, cuts more space, and hence it would go slower (after compensating for the gravitational effect).
Einstein made this prediction in 1905, and before he went on to finish his work on GR, which included gravitational time dilation. Once you factor GR in and allow for the fact the surface of the Earth follows a geoid( it has an oblate spheroid shape due to its rotation), it turns out that clocks at sea level at the Pole and equator run at the same rate .
You argument just shows that you don't understand the difference between how to treat things in non-inertial frames vs inertial frames. Assume for the moment that you had a perfect sphere so that we could ignore gravitational time dilation as it would be the same for both pole and equator.
In this case, you have two choices for which frame you want to work from. You can work from the non-rotating inertial frame, or the non-inertial co-rotating frame of the sphere. If you work from the inertial frame, then you are rest with respect to the pole clock and the equator clock has a speed of v=wr relative to you, where w is the angular velocity of the sphere and r is its radius, and you simply apply the Lorentz factor to the equator clock to conclude that it runs slow.
If you work from the non-inertial rotating frame, then there is no relative velocity between the two clocks, but there is a potential difference between them in the rotating frame that has to be accounted for and which predicts the same result as you got in the inertial frame.
Just because you never got past the inertial frame treatment which deals with relative velocities doesn't mean that Relativity doesn't go beyond that.
Quote
But there's still strong propaganda that is making Einstein an artificial deity. And this makes me very angry. The false concept of relativity is stalling the advance of science. We should be focusing our money on detecting the underlying fabric of space, which is the absolute reference frame. We can call it "fabric of space" or a specific "quantum field" or whatever, but it's obvious that it exits. And if we find a way to detect it, that will be a huge breakthrough in physics.
But as long as physicists are discouraged from research because "Einstein said everything is relative and Einstein is God" and money for such research is blocked, we won't find it. Relativists are deliberately stalling the science to protect their god. Why don't they just erect the Church of Einstein, go pray there every day, and leave the rest of the science alone. Science needs research not dogmas.
Oh, please. This view that science treats either Einstein or Relativity as sacrosanct is so off base as to be laughable. Science is always pushing Relativity to its limits, looking for chinks in its armor. If an experiment were to conclusively expose a flaw in the theory, it would bring excitement not despair to the scientific community, as it would open up new regions to explore.
Quote
As Janus already said, you can compensate for gravity and acceleration and still use SR for the velocity-based time-dilation.Don't put words in my mouth. I said that acceleration can be dealt with in SR, How you do so depends on which frame you are working from. It cannot deal with gravitational effects. For that you need GR (of which, SR is a subset)
Quote
All this proves is that you don't grasp what "relativity" means in this situation. As I already pointed out, if GPS relied on absolute velocity, then the satellite clocks rates would vary due to the various motions of the Earth, Sun etc. Since different satellites orbit at different orientations, The absolute velocities of these satellites would differ depending on how their orbital velocity added up to these other velocity. The only way to make the GPS satellites work with absolute motion, is to assume that the Earth is the absolute rest frame. But in posts above, you claim that our relative motion with respect to the CMB is our absolute velocity, which means that You can't make that assumption in your GPS argument.
Which is exactly what they do for GPS and everything else. But with a twist. They omit "relativity" from SR. They use just the absolute rotational speed. And rotational speed is absolute, think about it and you'll see why. So... GPS refutes relativity.
You are being inconsistent in your arguments, changing the assumptions depending on what you are trying to argue.
Whether this is deliberate, or you just don't realize that you are contradicting yourself, I don't know.
Quote
In the Hafele-Keating experiment they also compensated for gravity and curvature, but it didn't help. The numbers were still off. "Einstein's Special Relativity" didn't work until they moved the observer from the military base on the surface, to the axis in center of the Earth. Then it worked. Because they eliminated relativity. From the center of the Earth the airplanes were moving at different absolute speeds (but not relative to the military base). Proving that absolute speed matters, not relative.
The experiment results were in agreement with what Relativity predicted for the three non-inertial frames involved. Just because you can't see how this is consistent with "relativity" as you view it, doesn't mean that it is inconsistent with Relativity as it is understood in physics.
In essence, all your arguments are based on an incomplete grasp of the theory. You are trying to claim that the bits you think you understand don't fit together. But this is because you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle that connect the bits you have, and thus complete the whole picture.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2018 17:57:00
But the apparent speed of the CMBR is the same no matter which way we look at it. Velocity differs from speed in that it includes a direction. It looks to me that your reasoning would indicate that we are moving away from the source of the CMBR at roughly 368 km/s, but because the source is all around us, that presents a paradox: in which direction are we moving 368 km/s?Not quite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2018 17:58:50
We need to compare two one-way speeds of light.You keep saying that.
Why do you think it's true?
How did M and M get the MM experiment so badly wrong, and how did nobody notice?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/07/2018 19:02:35
Post by: David Cooper on 10/07/2018 23:32:10
There are several experiments that refute special relativity...
Most of the experiments you refer to do no such thing, not least because both SR/GR and LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) make the exact same predictions about the outcomes of all of them and render most of the discussion in this thread misguided in the extreme. However, the Sagnac experiment does lead the way to a proof that there is an absolute frame, so that has settled the argument for those who respect mathematics. The remaining problem is how to get people to accept that the issue has been resolved when they are so determined to back the wrong horse.
With Sagnac and MGP (Michelson Gale Pearson) we have experiments where light must be passing material at speeds higher than c relative to that material, and as soon as we have material with that property, we have a cast iron guarantee that some frames of references are making incorrect assertions about the speed of light relative to some material. As we extend the logic of this, we can further show that there can only be one frame that doesn't make any incorrect assertions while all the others are misrepresentations of reality, although we still cannot identify which is the correct (absolute) frame. Those who continue to insist that none of the frames are misrepresentations of reality have parted company with mathematics and rely for their position on nothing more than the authority of what is essentially a clergy.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 11/07/2018 13:49:14
But the apparent speed of the CMBR is the same no matter which way we look at it. Velocity differs from speed in that it includes a direction. It looks to me that your reasoning would indicate that we are moving away from the source of the CMBR at roughly 368 km/s, but because the source is all around us, that presents a paradox: in which direction are we moving 368 km/s?
CMBR rest frame is determined by looking at the redshift / blueshift of CMBR. We're moving in the direction of Leo constellation.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 11/07/2018 14:23:12
if GPS relied on absolute velocity, then the satellite clocks rates would vary due to the various motions of the Earth, Sun etc. Since different satellites orbit at different orientations, The absolute velocities of these satellites would differ depending on how their orbital velocity added up to these other velocity.
Not, because as Earth is moving, we're moving with it. So whatever delay is imposed onto the GPS satellite because of rotation around Sun, the same delay is imposed on the rest of the Earth, so we can't notice it. The only thing we CAN notice is the difference between us and the satellite. And that's just the rotational speed. All other speeds, such as Earth orbiting the Sun, or Sun orbiting the center of the galaxy, or our galaxy traveling through space, apply equally to us and the satellites. That's why it's so hard to measure it.
In essence, all your arguments are based on an incomplete grasp of the theory. You are trying to claim that the bits you think you understand don't fit together. But this is because you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle that connect the bits you have, and thus complete the whole picture.
The theory itself doesn't fit together. For example, light is said to be a wave. It moves, splits, diffracts and reflects like a wave. What's best, it always travels at the same speed in the same medium. So, yeah, that's wave-like behavior. Because the speed of waves depends on the medium. And yet, we're to believe that there's no medium. Hmmm. Waves can't exist without the medium. Only something oscillating carries the wave. So, what's oscillating? Nothing? Then it's not a wave. But since they ARE waves, we can measure them, then there must be a medium.
Another thing. You have the Sagnac effect, which shows that speed of light being measured as equal regardless of your speed (in the same or opposite direction) is an illusion. It's just a measurement problem.
Then you have the twin paradox. Why would one get younger? Is it because the rest frame of the "traveling" brother is changing? Okay, let's minimize the acceleration/deceleration to 1 second. Now you have 2 seconds of acceleration and 2 seconds of deceleration where you can apply any formula you want. But the rest of the trip is happening at constant speed. And if the brother travels for 20 of his years, and the Earth brother ages for 40 years in the same period, in which period did it happen that one aged more? Was it in those 4 seconds of acceleration/deceleration? Because if not, then it happened during those 20 years of constant speed. And as we know..... at a constant speed they both travel relative to each other at the same speed, so they should both age equally.
And there's tons of other stuff where relativity simply doesn't hold water. It would be overturned a long time ago if it wasn't about Einstein and maintaining the deity perfect.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 11/07/2018 14:26:14
Those who continue to insist that none of the frames are misrepresentations of reality have parted company with mathematics and rely for their position on nothing more than the authority of what is essentially a clergy.
I agree.
Post by: Janus on 11/07/2018 17:04:53
Wrong. You aren't thinking this out all the way properly. Let's take you 400 km/sec absolute motion for the Earth. Since GPS satellites have various orientations, you can find one that is orbiting so its orbit around the Earth intersects the line of the the Earth's "absolute" velocity. which means that part of the time its speed (relative to the Earth) of ~4 km/sec is added to the Earth's speed and sometimes subtracted from it. Thus while the Earth maintains its constant 400 km/sec and a fixed time dilation rate by your argument, the GPS satellite would vary its absolute velocity from 396 to 404 km/s. Sometimes having a lower absolute speed compared to the Earth and thus thus a faster clock tick rate than the Earth's, and sometimes having a higher absolute speed and a lower tick rate. Over time this would add up to a different total time difference than what you would get if the GPS clock ran at a constant slower rate than the Earth clock does, and which is the difference we do measure. You jumped to the conclusion you wanted rather than actually working it out.if GPS relied on absolute velocity, then the satellite clocks rates would vary due to the various motions of the Earth, Sun etc. Since different satellites orbit at different orientations, The absolute velocities of these satellites would differ depending on how their orbital velocity added up to these other velocity.
Not, because as Earth is moving, we're moving with it. So whatever delay is imposed onto the GPS satellite because of rotation around Sun, the same delay is imposed on the rest of the Earth, so we can't notice it. The only thing we CAN notice is the difference between us and the satellite. And that's just the rotational speed. All other speeds, such as Earth orbiting the Sun, or Sun orbiting the center of the galaxy, or our galaxy traveling through space, apply equally to us and the satellites. That's why it's so hard to measure it.
Quote
What is oscillating is the Electromagnetic field. A changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, which in turn produces a changing electric field. Just because you personally can't wrap your head around the Idea of light propagating without requiring a medium does not mean that it can't. The limits of your understanding are not the limits of the universe.In essence, all your arguments are based on an incomplete grasp of the theory. You are trying to claim that the bits you think you understand don't fit together. But this is because you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle that connect the bits you have, and thus complete the whole picture.
The theory itself doesn't fit together. For example, light is said to be a wave. It moves, splits, diffracts and reflects like a wave. What's best, it always travels at the same speed in the same medium. So, yeah, that's wave-like behavior. Because the speed of waves depends on the medium. And yet, we're to believe that there's no medium. Hmmm. Waves can't exist without the medium. Only something oscillating carries the wave. So, what's oscillating? Nothing? Then it's not a wave. But since they ARE waves, we can measure them, then there must be a medium.
Quote
If the Sagnac effect actually represented a failure of Relativity, then Relativity would have been abandoned and replaced. This is how science works. Again, just because you don't understand how the Sagnac effect is explained by Relativity doesn't mean that Relativity is wrong, just that your understanding of it is limited.
Another thing. You have the Sagnac effect, which shows that speed of light being measured as equal regardless of your speed (in the same or opposite direction) is an illusion. It's just a measurement problem.
Quote
Again, this just highlights your lack of grasp of the fundamentals of the theory. Relativity involves a whole new way to look at the concepts of time and space, but you are trying to shoehorn it into the old Newtonian view of absolute time and space.
Then you have the twin paradox. Why would one get younger? Is it because the rest frame of the "traveling" brother is changing? Okay, let's minimize the acceleration/deceleration to 1 second. Now you have 2 seconds of acceleration and 2 seconds of deceleration where you can apply any formula you want. But the rest of the trip is happening at constant speed. And if the brother travels for 20 of his years, and the Earth brother ages for 40 years in the same period, in which period did it happen that one aged more? Was it in those 4 seconds of acceleration/deceleration? Because if not, then it happened during those 20 years of constant speed. And as we know..... at a constant speed they both travel relative to each other at the same speed, so they should both age equally.
When you ask during which period does one twin age more than the other, the answer depends upon which twin is making that determination. If you ask the Earth Twin, he will say that the space twin aged slower than he did during the entire trip. If you ask the space twin, he will say that during the outbound and inbound cruising legs, the Earth twin aged less than he did, but during the period when he was accelerating during the turnaround at the end of the outbound leg, the Earth twin aged much more than he did. How much more depends on how far apart they were when turnaround occurred. When the two twins meet up again, they will agree as to which one is older, but disagree as to how this came about.
Quote
Again, BS. Einstein holds no such deity status in science. Nothing is just accepted because "Einstein said so". The Theory of Relativity, like any other theory, had to earn its way to acceptance by its predictions matching experiment and observation. It was not hailed as some great revelation handed down from above when first published, and there were plenty of physicists that doubted it. Even Einstein's Nobel prize was awarded for work other than Relativity, since it was not yet fully accepted at the time. Einstein's reputation is a result of Relativity being a successful theory over time. The acceptance of Relativity is not based on Einstein's reputation. There are countless scientists who would just love to build their own reputation by supplanting Einstein.
And there's tons of other stuff where relativity simply doesn't hold water. It would be overturned a long time ago if it wasn't about Einstein and maintaining the deity perfect.
Your claim that of "Einstein worship" stems from your need to boost your own ego. Rather than believe that your problems with Relativity are a result of your incomplete grasp of the subject, and accept that it is a failing on your part, you invent this idea that Einstein has been put on this pedestal that no one dares touch.
You need to examine your own motivations more closely before assigning motivations to others.
Post by: David Cooper on 11/07/2018 22:53:01
Quote
If the Sagnac effect actually represented a failure of Relativity, then Relativity would have been abandoned and replaced. This is how science works.
That is certainly how science should work, but it continues to fail here badly. Sagnac proves that the speed of light is greater than c relative to some material, and that shows that not all frames of reference can be accurate representations of reality. SR cannot account for some frames having such superiority over others, and indeed asserts that they don't, which means it invalidates itself by not conforming to the real universe.
Quote
And there's tons of other stuff where relativity simply doesn't hold water. It would be overturned a long time ago if it wasn't about Einstein and maintaining the deity perfect.
The establishment simply runs away from the proof that SR is wrong and pretends it's still viable, and yet there isn't a single simulation of relativity claiming to be SR or GR that doesn't have to cheat by bringing in a time external to the model in order to control the unfolding of events.
Quote
Again, BS. Einstein holds no such deity status in science.
He does - that is precisely why people override reason and go directly against the laws of mathematics in order to stick to an incorrect position. They lack the courage to go where maths says they should because they don't want to be ridiculed by the establishment; an establishment which is no different from the church refusing to look at the moons of Jupiter through Galileo's telescope.
Quote
...you invent this idea that Einstein has been put on this pedestal that no one dares touch.
He didn't invent that idea - it's one that's been around for a long time, and it's correct.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/07/2018 00:58:04
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/07/2018 12:34:57
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/07/2018 12:50:28
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lhc-atlas-photons-interact-physics
Post by: dressed.scientist on 12/07/2018 14:27:43
Define stationary. Define absolute. Absolutes are usually values that bound other values and cannot actually be reached. So following that reasoning there cannot be an absolute rest frame. It is a boundary condition. Stop being naive.
Stationary means that you're not moving relative to the underlying quantum field that carries the EM waves. Whether we call it the fabric of space or yet another quantum field (out of many), same thing. Photons "know" which one is that. They move at a constant speed relative to that frame. Their seeming "constant speed" relative to other frames is just an illusion caused by our inadequate measurement methods. Which we will eventually improve.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 12/07/2018 14:32:04
If Einstein was a "god" to scientists, then they wouldn't keep performing tests of his predictions: https://theconversation.com/how-we-proved-einstein-right-on-a-galactic-scale-and-what-it-means-for-dark-energy-and-dark-matter-98481
Those experiments are usually done by those who believe in his theories. They pretend they don't to make a little tension, but in the end they prove their deity was right. As usual. It's like organizing voting in North Korea.
Post by: Janus on 12/07/2018 14:50:59
Define stationary. Define absolute. Absolutes are usually values that bound other values and cannot actually be reached. So following that reasoning there cannot be an absolute rest frame. It is a boundary condition. Stop being naive.
Their seeming "constant speed" relative to other frames is just an illusion caused by our inadequate measurement methods.
How convenient it is that any and all experiments and observations that show results that are in conflict with that which you believe all involve measurement errors. This despite the fact that science knows perfectly well how to to account for error margins, and allow for them in their results.
Doubly convenient for you. For as more and more accurate experiments still fail to give the results you want, you can just continue to claim that they are still not "accurate" enough.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 12/07/2018 15:02:30
Quote
Wrong. You aren't thinking this out all the way properly. Let's take you 400 km/sec absolute motion for the Earth. Since GPS satellites have various orientations, you can find one that is orbiting so its orbit around the Earth intersects the line of the the Earth's "absolute" velocity. which means that part of the time its speed (relative to the Earth) of ~4 km/sec is added to the Earth's speed and sometimes subtracted from it. Thus while the Earth maintains its constant 400 km/sec and a fixed time dilation rate by your argument, the GPS satellite would vary its absolute velocity from 396 to 404 km/s. Sometimes having a lower absolute speed compared to the Earth and thus thus a faster clock tick rate than the Earth's, and sometimes having a higher absolute speed and a lower tick rate. Over time this would add up to a different total time difference than what you would get if the GPS clock ran at a constant slower rate than the Earth clock does, and which is the difference we do measure.
So, the clock would work faster part of the time, and slower another part of the time. But this applies to both satellites. And since you're only computing the difference, and the difference is really small in absolute values, this doesn't affect the system. The error wouldn't pile up, since whatever the clock loses here, it makes up later, so it's balanced.
Quote
What is oscillating is the Electromagnetic field. A changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, which in turn produces a changing electric field. Just because you personally can't wrap your head around the Idea of light propagating without requiring a medium does not mean that it can't. The limits of your understanding are not the limits of the universe.
Sorry, but that's a very naive explanation. You repeat what you've been taught without thinking logically. It's like saying that sound is spreading because of some fictional compression field. And when asked "what is being compressed" you say "nothing". Just because you couldn't see the air molecules you assumed they didn't exist. For waves to travel at a constant speed, there has to be a medium. There's no way around that. Otherwise you could make photons go faster by adding more energy. But you can't. Adding more energy just make denser waves or higher amplitudes, but doesn't make them faster, because they are 100% dependent on the medium.
Quote
If the Sagnac effect actually represented a failure of Relativity, then Relativity would have been abandoned and replaced. This is how science works.
Again a typical naive illusion. Maybe if you take it to the scale of 1000 years that's how knowledge works in general. Not just in science, but generally. However on a small time-scale knowledge can easily be suppressed. Didn't you hear of an experiment when the scientific publication editor decided to reject all the articles he wanted to put into the next issue, and included those that he wanted to reject. Nobody noticed the difference. Did you know that around 50% of all published articles were never peer-reviewed? Did you know all work that refutes relativity was always apriori rejected? So... your naive textbook definition of how science works is cute, but children also think that policemen prevent drug dealers from dealing drugs. And in reality, police is usually cooperating with the drug dealers and even protecting them. What should be is one thing, reality is another. Grow up.
Quote
Again, this just highlights your lack of grasp of the fundamentals of the theory. Relativity involves a whole new way to look at the concepts of time and space, but you are trying to shoehorn it into the old Newtonian view of absolute time and space.
When you ask during which period does one twin age more than the other, the answer depends upon which twin is making that determination. If you ask the Earth Twin, he will say that the space twin aged slower than he did during the entire trip. If you ask the space twin, he will say that during the outbound and inbound cruising legs, the Earth twin aged less than he did, but during the period when he was accelerating during the turnaround at the end of the outbound leg, the Earth twin aged much more than he did. How much more depends on how far apart they were when turnaround occurred. When the two twins meet up again, they will agree as to which one is older, but disagree as to how this came about.
Wow. You must be a true relativist. You said a lot, and still nothing. Let's imagine that Earth-bound brother was sending selfies every 10 seconds towards his traveling brother. The traveling brother would be receiving normal selfies in sequence, numerated to be sure. There would be a delay, but selfies would be numerated. Aging will be very gradual. But then at one moment, when turning around, he would see that hist brother aged 10 years between two selfies (because turning around takes only 2 seconds). His brother would look 10 years older between two consecutive selfies? Is that what you're saying?
Quote
Again, BS. Einstein holds no such deity status in science.
Oh, come on. He's being glorified in all media and even his mistakes are being advertised as hits. All the scientists who have refuted him are being swept under the carpet. How many people have heard of John Stewart Bell? The man who has clearly shown that Einsteins assumptions and hopes about quantum entanglement being slower than light are false. How many ordinary people (on the street) has ever heard of quantum entanglement. An effect that spreads faster than light. Not slightly faster. But at least 100,000 times faster. Nobody knows that outside of people into physics, even though it's real. Instead of that, a fake concept of wormholes is constantly being advertised in popsci shows and movies, because Einstein supported it, and he didn't support FTL quantum entanglement. It's not a boost of my ego when someone's failures are advertised as successes, while at the same time some real amazing scientists are swept under the carpet. You don't notice much things around you, do you? Need to work on that.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 12/07/2018 15:21:08
Quote
Doubly convenient for you. For as more and more accurate experiments still fail to give the results you want, you can just continue to claim that they are still not "accurate" enough.
Really? Isn't it convenient that in Hafele-Keating they started doing experiment with 2 trips from the base in opposite directions, and then when results weren't as they expected, they moved the observer? Do you think they indented to do that at the start of the experiment? Because if their original intention was to prove that a faster moving clock experiences more time-dilation, they would have just done one trip around the world, and compare it to the clock in the military base.
But they wanted to do two trips, opposite directions, but same relative distance, to see if the result would be the same. After the result was different, wasn't it convenient that they've changed the setup of the experiment AFTERWARDS? Fitting the experiment to the result, and not vice versa? How is that called? Fitting the data? Rigging the results?
"Oh, sorry, we've made a mistake in the setup, but we've fixed it AFTER we got the result".
Post by: Kryptid on 12/07/2018 16:43:32
Those experiments are usually done by those who believe in his theories. They pretend they don't to make a little tension, but in the end they prove their deity was right. As usual. It's like organizing voting in North Korea.
So you're positing a conspiracy theory now?
Post by: David Cooper on 12/07/2018 22:39:48
How convenient it is that any and all experiments and observations that show results that are in conflict with that which you believe all involve measurement errors. This despite the fact that science knows perfectly well how to to account for error margins, and allow for them in their results.
There's a difference between errors in measurements and errors in interpretations of the results of experiments. SR/GR and LET predict the same measurements, so anyone looking for errors in the measurements isn't going to find them unless both approaches are wrong (which would be awkward as they're the only serious candidates). We can distinguish between them though and label one approach as rational and the other irrational because one of them tolerates contradictions while the other doesn't. All else being equal, a theory that generates contradictions is always inferior to a theory that doesn't, and that's the situation we're in here. Einstein's SR embraces contradictions while Lorentz's rejects them.
Post by: David Cooper on 12/07/2018 22:53:01
Define stationary.
Half way between moving at c in one direction and c in the opposite direction.
Quote
Define absolute.
In the context of an absolute frame, it's the frame that makes correct assertions about the speed of light relative to the objects in that space rather than making incorrect assertions.
Quote
Absolutes are usually values that bound other values and cannot actually be reached. So following that reasoning there cannot be an absolute rest frame. It is a boundary condition.
"Absolute frame" is just a convenient name for "the frame which makes correct assertions about the speed of light relative to the objects in that space and which thereby does not misrepresent reality". There can be such a frame, while all other frames misrepresent reality by asserting that the speed of light relative to some objects in some directions has values which are not correct. The assertions that different frames make about these relative speeds are not compatible with the assertions made by other frames. Einstein's approach is to say that they are all equally true (which means he accepts an infinite number of contradictions) while Lorentz says that only one frame tells the truth and that the others are all misrepresentations of reality. Sagnac and MGP show us that light must travel past some material at speeds higher than c relative to it, and in doing so they show up the elementary mistake that most people have made in imagining that the contradictions in the accounts generated by different frames aren't contradictions. They most certainly are contradictions, and anyone who doesn't understand that is being plain irrational, failing to conform to the rules of mathematics.
Post by: dressed.scientist on 13/07/2018 03:27:32
Quote
So you're positing a conspiracy theory now?
Nope. It's not conspiracy theory if it's true.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/07/2018 05:47:02
Nope. It's not conspiracy theory if it's true.
So you believe that every time an experimental observation supporting Einstein's theories is published in a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, the results were knowingly fabricated by the research team. Right...
Post by: David Cooper on 13/07/2018 23:00:37
So you believe that every time an experimental observation supporting Einstein's theories is published in a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, the results were knowingly fabricated by the research team. Right...
You must have seen all the experiments where the scientific press announces "Einstein's theory confirmed again!" - they never say "Lorentz's theory is confirmed again", even though it makes the same predictions. You'd also expect them to use a less biased wording like "Einstein's theory survives another test". If they weren't biased though, you would also see headlines like "Einstein's theory incompatible with Sagnac due to contradictions", but you never get that from them, even though Sagnac demonstrates that there must be an absolute frame.
The reality is that we have a physics establishment which simply ignores anything that goes against its required beliefs on this specific point. How this Einstein mind virus became so strongly entrenched, I do not understand, but it is clearly driven by the exact same irrationality as religious beliefs where people simply refuse to recognise a proof when it's set before their eyes. A correct analysis of Sagnac demonstrates that light does not travel past all objects at c relative to them, but that it travels at >c relative to some objects, and this proves that some frames (all but one of them) are misrepresentations of reality. Failure to recognise that is the abandonment of mathematics and reason in favour of an irrationality which is so extreme as to assert that 1=2, 2=30, -500=3.14, and indeed that any value equals any other value you care to name. In reality, if light moves at c relative to all objects, no objects can move relative to each other at all and the universe doesn't function.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/07/2018 23:09:07
You must have seen all the experiments where the scientific press announces "Einstein's theory confirmed again!" - they never say "Lorentz's theory is confirmed again", even though it makes the same predictions. You'd also expect them to use a less biased wording like "Einstein's theory survives another test". If they weren't biased though, you would also see headlines like "Einstein's theory incompatible with Sagnac due to contradictions", but you never get that from them, even though Sagnac demonstrates that there must be an absolute frame.
The reality is that we have a physics establishment which simply ignores anything that goes against its required beliefs on this specific point. How this Einstein mind virus became so strongly entrenched, I do not understand, but it is clearly driven by the exact same irrationality as religious beliefs where people simply refuse to recognise a proof when it's set before their eyes. A correct analysis of Sagnac demonstrates that light does not travel past all objects at c relative to them, but that it travels at >c relative to some objects, and this proves that some frames (all but one of them) are misrepresentations of reality. Failure to recognise that is the abandonment of mathematics and reason in favour of an irrationality which is so extreme as to assert that 1=2, 2=30, -500=3.14, and indeed that any value equals any other value you care to name. In reality, if light moves at c relative to all objects, no objects can move relative to each other at all and the universe doesn't function.
So that's two people in this thread that believe there is a conspiracy in the science establishment to write up phony data each and every time that they publish peer-reviewed literature regarding relativity.
Post by: David Cooper on 13/07/2018 23:48:30
So that's two people in this thread that believe there is a conspiracy in the science establishment to write up phony data each and every time that they publish peer-reviewed literature regarding relativity.
You've just demonstrated that you can't count. The data isn't phony - it doesn't need to be because Lorentz makes the exact same predictions as Einstein. Any experiment that "confirms" Einstein does not in reality confirm his theory at all, but merely shows itself to be compatible both with his theory and with Lorentz's. Dressed.scientist is tripping up on things where he imagines that experiments are producing bad results where they aren't. The rest of you are tripping up by failing to apply mathematics consistently - you should be acknowledging that (a) light passes some objects at >c relative to them, and (b) some frames of reference are therefore misrepresentations of reality because they make incorrect assertions about the speed of light relative to such objects. But you won't do that because you don't want to go against the establishment, so you go against mathematics instead.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/07/2018 23:59:27
You've just demonstrated that you can't count. The data isn't phony - it doesn't need to be because Lorentz makes the exact same predictions as Einstein. Any experiment that "confirms" Einstein does not in reality confirm his theory at all, but merely shows itself to be compatible both with his theory and with Lorentz's.
So Lorentz came up with all of the same ideas as Einstein?
Quote
Dressed.scientist is tripping up on things where he imagines that experiments are producing bad results where they aren't. The rest of you are tripping up by failing to apply mathematics consistently - you should be acknowledging that (a) light passes some objects at >c relative to them, and (b) some frames of reference are therefore misrepresentations of reality because they make incorrect assertions about the speed of light relative to such objects. But you won't do that because you don't want to go against the establishment, so you go against mathematics instead.
That would depend on which reference frames you are talking about. From my own reference frame, I can certainly see a beam of light moving faster than light relative to the motion of another object if both the light beam and moving object are moving in opposite directions. But that isn't the kind of superluminal velocity that relativity forbids, so it's not a problem.
Post by: David Cooper on 14/07/2018 00:30:24
So Lorentz came up with all of the same ideas as Einstein?
An alternative theory using the same maths but with a radically different interpretation.
Quote
That would depend on which reference frames you are talking about.
It covers all reference frames - they all contradict each other and only one of them can be a true representation of reality while the rest generate incorrect assertions.
Quote
From my own reference frame, I can certainly see a beam of light moving faster than light relative to the motion of another object if both the light beam and moving object are moving in opposite directions. But that isn't the kind of superluminal velocity that relativity forbids, so it's not a problem.
How is it not a problem? You accept that this kind of superluminal relative speed between light and an object is not forbidden, so you're nearly there. Ask yourself what happens when a fibre-optic ring with light going round this circuit in opposite directions is rotating in such a manner that light sent from an emitter in opposite directions returns to the emitter as two pulses rather than one. One lot of light has passed through all the material of the ring at a higher speed relative to it than the other lot of light. This gives us a guarantee that the speed of light relative to some of that material was higher than c in one direction, and as soon as we accept that fact, we are forced to accept that any frame that represents the light passing through that material at c rather than >c is misrepresenting reality. Once we have accepted that point, we can extend it to show that only one frame can be a true representation of reality. The rejection of any part of this argument is a departure from mathematics.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/07/2018 00:45:53
they all contradict each other and only one of them can be a true representation of reality while the rest generate incorrect assertions.
This sounds more like a philosophical argument than anything else. I see no reason why there must be only one correct reference frame. Each reference frame seems to be an equally valid description of the Universe.
Quote
How is it not a problem?
Relativity only says that you cannot see objects relative to your own reference as moving faster than light. The moving object I mentioned moving away from the light beam in my earlier post would still see that beam of light as moving only at the speed of light thanks to length contraction and time dilation.
Quote
You accept that this kind of superluminal relative speed between light and an object is not forbidden, so you're nearly there. Ask yourself what happens when a fibre-optic ring with light going round this circuit in opposite directions is rotating in such a manner that light sent from an emitter in opposite directions returns to the emitter as two pulses rather than one. One lot of light has passed through all the material of the ring at a higher speed relative to it than the other lot of light. This gives us a guarantee that the speed of light relative to some of that material was higher than c in one direction, and as soon as we accept that fact, we are forced to accept that any frame that represents the light passing through that material at c rather than >c is misrepresenting reality. Once we have accepted that point, we can extend it to show that only one frame can be a true representation of reality. The rejection of any part of this argument is a departure from mathematics.
From our perspective outside the rotating ring, we would indeed see the two beams of light arrive at the emitter at different times. But we are third party observers: nothing in our reference frame is actually moving faster than light relative to us. The same is true for the emitter. The emitter would still see the two beams of light moving at a speed equal to each other and both beams would arrive back at the emitter at the same time. That's relativity of simultaneity.
Post by: David Cooper on 14/07/2018 23:01:39
This sounds more like a philosophical argument than anything else.
Is the argument that 1=2 a philosophical argument? That's the one that your side is inadvertently making in order to justify SR. In mathematics, 1=2 is an illegal move.
Quote
I see no reason why there must be only one correct reference frame. Each reference frame seems to be an equally valid description of the Universe.
If some material has the property that light passes it at >c relative to it in one direction, any frame which asserts that it doesn't is a direct misrepresentation of reality and not a valid description of the universe. SR is automatically invalidated by this distinction between frames which misrepresent reality and frames that don't. Anyone who clings to SR is being irrational and has allowed science to be contaminated with voodoo. In a case where we can't tell which material has this property but where we can tell that some of the material in play must have this property (as is the case here where more than half of the material of the ring must have this property at any point in time), we can can take any two opposite points on the ring and say that if one of those points does not have that property, the other point must have it. If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to the first point in all directions is c, that frame can only be a true representation of reality if the frame of reference which asserts that the other point has that property (that light moves relative to it at c in all directions) is not a true representation of reality. It is not possible for both of these frames to be equally valid descriptions of the universe when at least one of them is misrepresenting the truth. This is utterly straightforward mathematics and it should not be written off as "philosophy" (unless you want to write off mathematics in the same careless manner).
Quote
From our perspective outside the rotating ring, we would indeed see the two beams of light arrive at the emitter at different times. But we are third party observers: nothing in our reference frame is actually moving faster than light relative to us. The same is true for the emitter. The emitter would still see the two beams of light moving at a speed equal to each other and both beams would arrive back at the emitter at the same time. That's relativity of simultaneity.
Be careful not to go against the results of experiments - there is no way that an observer at the emitter would record the two lots of light returning to him simultaneously. No observers see the two lots of light return to the emitter simultaneously. ALL observers measure that one lot of light has passed through the material of the ring at a speed >c in one direction relative to it and <c in the other direction.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/07/2018 05:45:07
Is the argument that 1=2 a philosophical argument? That's the one that your side is inadvertently making in order to justify SR. In mathematics, 1=2 is an illegal move.
Except relativity isn't asserting that 1=2, it's asserting that the Universe is literally structured differently between different reference frames. The length of an object might be 1 foot in one reference frame and 2 feet in another. It would only be saying that 1=2 if it asserted that the object was both 1 foot long and 2 feet long in the same reference frame.
Quote
If some material has the property that light passes it at >c relative to it in one direction, any frame which asserts that it doesn't is a direct misrepresentation of reality and not a valid description of the universe. SR is automatically invalidated by this distinction between frames which misrepresent reality and frames that don't. Anyone who clings to SR is being irrational and has allowed science to be contaminated with voodoo. In a case where we can't tell which material has this property but where we can tell that some of the material in play must have this property (as is the case here where more than half of the material of the ring must have this property at any point in time), we can can take any two opposite points on the ring and say that if one of those points does not have that property, the other point must have it. If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to the first point in all directions is c, that frame can only be a true representation of reality if the frame of reference which asserts that the other point has that property (that light moves relative to it at c in all directions) is not a true representation of reality. It is not possible for both of these frames to be equally valid descriptions of the universe when at least one of them is misrepresenting the truth. This is utterly straightforward mathematics and it should not be written off as "philosophy" (unless you want to write off mathematics in the same careless manner).
It sounds like the problem is that you are starting with the assumption that there must be only one true reference frame and that any other references frames that don't conform to this arbitrarily chosen reference frame are wrong. Experiments designed to search for a preferred reference frame (like the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment) have failed to find evidence for it.
Quote
Be careful not to go against the results of experiments
When was an experiment ever performed where an observer measured light in a vacuum travelling either faster than or slower than c relative to the observer?
Post by: guest4091 on 15/07/2018 20:01:20
Here is some math.
If you find an error, point it out, and I'll correct it.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: David Cooper on 15/07/2018 20:43:46
Except relativity isn't asserting that 1=2,
It's doing exactly that when it claims that all reference frames are equally valid. All frames contradict all other frames - the assertions they make about the speed of light relative to objects are fundamentally incompatible with each other.
Quote
it's asserting that the Universe is literally structured differently between different reference frames.
It's asserting contradictory things and asserting that they can all be true at once. The way the top people justify this though is to use Minkowski Spacetime where every object can have an infinite number of different lengths without there being any contradiction, although the unfortunate consequence of this is that light reduces all of its journeys to zero length and zero time and becomes speedless, but there are fatal consequences which rule such models out too, either through event-meshing failures or through the inability to build a block universe under the rules of SR (if you go for a block universe version to try to avoid the event-meshing failures).
Quote
The length of an object might be 1 foot in one reference frame and 2 feet in another. It would only be saying that 1=2 if it asserted that the object was both 1 foot long and 2 feet long in the same reference frame.
Only in a Minkowski Spacetime model. There are only three SR models worthy of consideration which are all incompatible with each other, and all three have fatal faults that rule them out. If we're working with a model where the speed of light relative to objects is c rather than infinite or zero, then we are clearly not dealing with a Minkowski Spacetime model, so you need to stop mixing incompatible models here and trying to inject properties of one model into a different model where they don't belong. With non-Minkowski Spacetime (Einstein's original conception), all frames make assertions which are incompatible with the assertions made by other frames. If you want to try to refute that by switching to a Minkowski model, that's an illegal move - the models are fundamentally incompatible with each other.
Quote
It sounds like the problem is that you are starting with the assumption that there must be only one true reference frame and that any other references frames that don't conform to this arbitrarily chosen reference frame are wrong.
No. I start with the SR models, then test them by their own rules to see if they function as claimed. None of them do - it is impossible to simulate any of them without cheating by bringing in extra rules that are forbidden in the model, and that shows that the models are wrong.
Quote
Experiments designed to search for a preferred reference frame (like the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment) have failed to find evidence for it.
No one has designed any experiment that could be capable of detecting an absolute frame precisely because relativity (Lorentzian relativity) completely masks any differences that you are hoping to find. If you explore the maths of it properly, you'll be able to understand mechanistically why this must be the case. The only way to get round that detection barrier would require faster than light communication to enable clocks to be synchronised properly, at which point the absolute frame would immediately be revealed.
Quote
When was an experiment ever performed where an observer measured light in a vacuum travelling either faster than or slower than c relative to the observer?
No experiment can do that - Lorentzian relativity always makes it look as if it's passing you at c by slowing your functionality down if you're moving fast and by mis-synchronising your clocks if you set up an array of them. You have to be much more clever than that to avoid being deceived by nature, and that's where Sagnac and Michelson Gale Pearson come to the rescue by proving to us that light passes some objects at speeds other than c relative to them, including relative speeds higher than c.
Here's the crucial thought experiment (backed by experiment through Sagnac and MGP):-
A ring of fibre-optic cable rotates anticlockwise. Light is emitted from an observer who moves with part of the cable. He sends a flash of blue light off anticlockwise through the cable and he simultaneously sends a flash of red light off clockwise. The red flash returns to him first (from the opposite side to the one he sent it out on), and then the blue flash returns to him the other way. He has observed the red flash return to him first, and every other observer in any other frame has made the same observation.
Now for the questions (the answers provided are for non-Minkowski Spacetime):-
(A) Did the red light pass through all the material of the ring of cable more quickly than the blue light?
Answer: yes.
(B) Is the cable the same length in both directions round it?
Answer: yes.
(C) Does the red light pass through that material at a higher speed relative to it than the blue light does?
Answer: yes.
(D) Does the red light pass through that material at a speed higher than c relative to it?
Answer: yes.
(E) Is there material in the ring which has the property that light passes it at >c in some directions relative to it?
Answer: yes.
(F) If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to such material with that property is c in all directions, is it misrepresenting reality?
Answer: yes.
So, do you disagree with any of my answers? If not, then you should agree with me that the non-Minkowski Spacetime SR has been disproved on the basis that some frames are not valid because they misrepresent reality. If you disagree with that, you've parted company with mathematics. If you agree though, then we have ruled out one of the SR models and can move on to the other models (which we can eliminate in other ways).
Post by: zmth on 16/07/2018 02:35:02
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2018 05:01:15
It's doing exactly that when it claims that all reference frames are equally valid. All frames contradict all other frames - the assertions they make about the speed of light relative to objects are fundamentally incompatible with each other.
It's asserting contradictory things and asserting that they can all be true at once. The way the top people justify this though is to use Minkowski Spacetime where every object can have an infinite number of different lengths without there being any contradiction, although the unfortunate consequence of this is that light reduces all of its journeys to zero length and zero time and becomes speedless, but there are fatal consequences which rule such models out too, either through event-meshing failures or through the inability to build a block universe under the rules of SR (if you go for a block universe version to try to avoid the event-meshing failures).
Only in a Minkowski Spacetime model. There are only three SR models worthy of consideration which are all incompatible with each other, and all three have fatal faults that rule them out. If we're working with a model where the speed of light relative to objects is c rather than infinite or zero, then we are clearly not dealing with a Minkowski Spacetime model, so you need to stop mixing incompatible models here and trying to inject properties of one model into a different model where they don't belong. With non-Minkowski Spacetime (Einstein's original conception), all frames make assertions which are incompatible with the assertions made by other frames. If you want to try to refute that by switching to a Minkowski model, that's an illegal move - the models are fundamentally incompatible with each other.
So what if observers in different frames disagree about what they see? Big deal. I would only consider that to be a problem if you could produce paradoxes of some kind (something like, say, a coin lands heads in one reference frame and tails in another).
Quote
No. I start with the SR models, then test them by their own rules to see if they function as claimed. None of them do - it is impossible to simulate any of them without cheating by bringing in extra rules that are forbidden in the model, and that shows that the models are wrong.
Color me skeptical. If what you say is true then I'm sure the "top people" as you call them would have realized as much a long time ago and relativity would have never become popularly accepted to begin with. There would have been no motivation to accept it.
Quote
No one has designed any experiment that could be capable of detecting an absolute frame precisely because relativity (Lorentzian relativity) completely masks any differences that you are hoping to find. If you explore the maths of it properly, you'll be able to understand mechanistically why this must be the case. The only way to get round that detection barrier would require faster than light communication to enable clocks to be synchronised properly, at which point the absolute frame would immediately be revealed.
No experiment can do that - Lorentzian relativity always makes it look as if it's passing you at c by slowing your functionality down if you're moving fast and by mis-synchronising your clocks if you set up an array of them.
That's pretty much what I've been saying this whole time.
Quote
You have to be much more clever than that to avoid being deceived by nature, and that's where Sagnac and Michelson Gale Pearson come to the rescue by proving to us that light passes some objects at speeds other than c relative to them, including relative speeds higher than c.
When did either of those experiments demonstrate that light in a vacuum.moves at a speed different than c relative to any part of those devices in that device's reference frame? Please keep in mind that I am not talking about how fast relative velocities look to us standing outside of the device.
Quote
Here's the crucial thought experiment (backed by experiment through Sagnac and MGP):-
A ring of fibre-optic cable rotates anticlockwise. Light is emitted from an observer who moves with part of the cable. He sends a flash of blue light off anticlockwise through the cable and he simultaneously sends a flash of red light off clockwise. The red flash returns to him first (from the opposite side to the one he sent it out on), and then the blue flash returns to him the other way.
He has observed the red flash return to him first, and every other observer in any other frame has made the same observation.
What about an observer on the rotating ring itself?
Quote
Now for the questions (the answers provided are for non-Minkowski Spacetime):-
(A) Did the red light pass through all the material of the ring of cable more quickly than the blue light?
Answer: yes.
Only in our reference frame outside of the device.
Quote
(C) Does the red light pass through that material at a higher speed relative to it than the blue light does?
Answer: yes.
Only in our reference frame outside of the device.
Quote
(D) Does the red light pass through that material at a speed higher than c relative to it?
Answer: yes.
Only in our reference frame outside of the device.
Quote
(E) Is there material in the ring which has the property that light passes it at >c in some directions relative to it?
Answer: yes.
One in our reference frame outside of the device.
Quote
(F) If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to such material with that property is c in all directions, is it misrepresenting reality?
Answer: yes.
No.
Quote
So, do you disagree with any of my answers? If not, then you should agree with me that the non-Minkowski Spacetime SR has been disproved on the basis that some frames are not valid because they misrepresent reality. If you disagree with that, you've parted company with mathematics. If you agree though, then we have ruled out one of the SR models and can move on to the other models (which we can eliminate in other ways).
You said yourself that "Lorentzian relativity always makes it look as if it's passing you at c", so you've already agreed that any attempt to measure the speed of the red and blue light beams with a device aboard the spinning fiber optic cable itself will not measure the red and blue light as travelling at velocities different from c.
Post by: David Cooper on 16/07/2018 18:13:08
David Cooper;
Here is some math.
If you find an error, point it out, and I'll correct it.LT to rel vel.pdf (28.41 kB - downloaded 167 times)
If it merely expands on the question it begins with ("Is an absolute rest frame U, necessary for measurements involving translational/inertial motion within Special Relativity?"), then it's likely that it contains no error. If it's relevant to the question of the actual speed of light relative to objects, let me know how.
Post by: David Cooper on 16/07/2018 19:13:43
So what if observers in different frames disagree about what they see? Big deal. I would only consider that to be a problem if you could produce paradoxes of some kind (something like, say, a coin lands heads in one reference frame and tails in another).
Imagine that there's a coin in a box sitting on a planet which is impossible to open and impossible to see inside. One person claims that heads is up, while another claims it's tails. Because it's impossible to find out the answer, a third person claims that both answers are right. "So what if they disagree!" he says: "Big deal!"
Quote
QuoteNo. I start with the SR models, then test them by their own rules to see if they function as claimed. None of them do - it is impossible to simulate any of them without cheating by bringing in extra rules that are forbidden in the model, and that shows that the models are wrong.
Color me skeptical. If what you say is true then I'm sure the "top people" as you call them would have realized as much a long time ago and relativity would have never become popularly accepted to begin with. There would have been no motivation to accept it.
You should always be sceptical, but I put an open challenge out years ago for anyone to find a simulation of SR that doesn't cheat, and plenty of physicists have seen that challenge. No one has found such a simulation, and no one is able to write one either, even though it would be really simple to do this if they were right: all they have to do is show how they handle the Twins "Paradox" while simulating it from start to finish. It's an impossible task though, so they cannot do it. It If they run it on the original rules of SR, they have to pick the time of one frame of reference to govern the unfolding of events for objects moving through that frame, which means they're producing an LET simulation and passing it off as SR. If they run it on the rules of Minkowski Spacetime with a running kind of time, they get event-meshing failures (at which point they delete their code and pretend it never happened). If they run it on the rules of Minkowski Spacetime without a running time (i.e. a block universe version), they can then produce a lovely simulation that appears to function fine, until you ask them to simulate the generation of the block, at which point they discover that they can't generate it under those rules and that they have to go back to the rules of LET. What we actually get from these jokers is a false belief system which they defend by mixing incompatible models, using different ones to show how different aspects of SR supposedly work, but they can't do the job with any single model (and mixing the models is cheating because they are fundamentally incompatible, contradicting each other on the nature of reality).
Quote
That's pretty much what I've been saying this whole time.
In which case you shouldn't be using the impossibility of detecting the absolute frame as proof of its non-existence. You should focus instead on trying to break the mathematical proof that the absolute frame must exist.
Quote
When did either of those experiments demonstrate that light in a vacuum.moves at a speed different than c relative to any part of those devices in that device's reference frame? Please keep in mind that I am not talking about how fast relative velocities look to us standing outside of the device.
You're not going to deny the results of these experiments, are you? MGP wasn't done with a ring round the Earth's axis, but we've done the experiment in plenty of other ways since where we send signals round the planet in a vacuum and confirm that they get back to the moving emitter in less time in one direction than the other. At the points where the signal is bounced to take it round the corners, it is moving relative to the satellite that bouncing it, and it's moving faster relative to them in one direction than the other (assuming the satellites are all orbiting in the same direction). We've done more than enough of these experiments to know that what I've set out in my thought experiment is correct, and if you have a problem with the fibre-optic cable, you can replace that with a hollow cable with a reflective inner surface and vacuum in the middle.
Quote
What about an observer on the rotating ring itself?
Isn't that what we're dealing with already? If it makes it easier for you, just make the emitter-detector the observer.
Quote
Quote(A) Did the red light pass through all the material of the ring of cable more quickly than the blue light?
Answer: yes.
Only in our reference frame outside of the device.
In what universe is there a reference frame which allows an observer to see the red and blue light return to the detector simultaneously or in a different order? Observers in all reference frames measure that the red light passed through all the material of the ring of the cable more quickly than the blue light - there is no possible alternative to this. Show me a counterexample to this claim if you think you're right.
Quote
Quote(C) Does the red light pass through that material at a higher speed relative to it than the blue light does?
Answer: yes.
Only in our reference frame outside of the device.
Observers in all frames measure the blue light taking longer to pass through the material of the ring than the red light. Show me a counterexample to this claim if you think you're right.
Quote
Quote(D) Does the red light pass through that material at a speed higher than c relative to it?
Answer: yes.
Only in our reference frame outside of the device.
Show me a frame of reference in which the red light doesn't pass through that material at a speed higher than c relative to it. There is no such frame, so if you're sure you're right, you should have no trouble proving me wrong.
Quote
Quote(E) Is there material in the ring which has the property that light passes it at >c in some directions relative to it?
Answer: yes.
One in our reference frame outside of the device.
Assuming you mean "only" rather than "one", again I ask you to show me a frame where this is not the case. No such frame exists.
Quote
Quote(F) If a frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to such material with that property is c in all directions, is it misrepresenting reality?
Answer: yes.
No.
And you've failed every question in the exam. How do you think you're in a position to judge the validity of SR when you can't even get the right answers to questions where the answers are already provided for you? But congratulations for giving it a go - most people don't dare to take it on at all because they can see that the answers I've provided are correct, so they stay silent and hope that it will all go away.
Quote
You said yourself that "Lorentzian relativity always makes it look as if it's passing you at c", so you've already agreed that any attempt to measure the speed of the red and blue light beams with a device aboard the spinning fiber optic cable itself will not measure the red and blue light as travelling at velocities different from c.
If light is passing you and you try to measure its speed relative to you directly, you will get the answer c, but this will happen even if the real value is nearer to 0 or 2c. What I realised though after looking at MGP is that we can make a very revealing measurement which proves that the speed of light relative to some material is greater than c, and that's all it takes to disprove one of the three categories of SR model (the other two being disproved in other ways, as referred to earlier). The red light passes through all the material of the ring (or if we're dealing with a vacuum ring, it passes through all the sectors of the ring) in less time then the blue light does, and it is measured as doing that by observers in all frames. If you want to try to use length contraction as a get-out, it won't work - I've already explained in another thread here why that makes the situation worse for you rather than better. If you want to read up on that, you can find the thread here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72989.0 - it contains another version of the thought experiment where the ring is simplified to a linear system, so that simplifies the calculations if you want to explore the length contraction issues.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2018 20:08:39
I'm done.
Post by: David Cooper on 16/07/2018 20:52:20
This is like debating Thebox...
I'm done.
In other words, you can't find any frame of reference that fits with your incorrect assertions, even though you claimed repeatedly that only one frame fits with what I said. The reality is that when I said all frames fit what I said, all frames fit what I said - that's the reason you can't find a counterexample.
Is there anyone rational in science who's prepared to do things properly, or do they all just run away when they're shown to be wrong while making out that they won an argument they lost? It's exactly the same as arguing with religious people who refuse to reason and reject straightforward mathematics. It's beyond shocking. How did science get into this sorry state?
Post by: guest4091 on 17/07/2018 16:21:23
If the emitter/detector E is a fixture of the ring, and thus rotating with the ring, then fig.1 shows E detecting the green light 1st and the blue light 2nd. It's not because light speed has varied, but because the distance traveled in space varied. Green traveled less than 2 pi and blue traveled more than 2 pi.
If a mirror M is located half way at pi and signals sent in opposite directions, as in an equivalent translational motion experiment (fig.2), the signals return simultaneously and verify light speed was c (the 2nd blue line reflecting at x=pi.
What you are measuring is closing speed, green, t=6.28/1.2=5.2 and blue, 6.28/.8=7.85.
Postulate 1. If the circumstance is the same for both, observing a clock moving relative to you, each must observe the same physical behavior, i.e. a slow running clock.
Your problem is still the same as before. Perception is reality confined to the mind. Each has their personal perception of events, BUT, perception does not influence the distant clock. Perception is the processing of images of the distant clock which is passive, looking at the clock does not affect it. That only happens if you are probing microscopic particles with light, as an example. You are confusing observations of an object with the behavior of the object. [ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: David Cooper on 17/07/2018 21:52:05
If the emitter/detector E is a fixture of the ring, and thus rotating with the ring, then fig.1 shows E detecting the green light 1st and the blue light 2nd. It's not because light speed has varied, but because the distance traveled in space varied. Green traveled less than 2 pi and blue traveled more than 2 pi.
Of course it isn't because of the speed of the light varying - the speed of light is constant. What is different for the two lots of light is its speed relative to the material it's passing. We have the red light passing through a length of ring in a shorter time than the blue light passes through the same length of ring. The red light is passing through that material at a speed relative to it greater than c, while the blue light is doing so at a speed lower than c.
Quote
If a mirror M is located half way at pi and signals sent in opposite directions, as in an equivalent translational motion experiment (fig.2), the signals return simultaneously and verify light speed was c (the 2nd blue line reflecting at x=pi.
Lovely. Why not tell me something else that we agree on.
Quote
What you are measuring is closing speed, green, t=6.28/1.2=5.2 and blue, 6.28/.8=7.85.
... which is the speed of the light relative to the material it's passing through.
Quote
Postulate 1. If the circumstance is the same for both, observing a clock moving relative to you, each must observe the same physical behavior, i.e. a slow running clock.
The observer co-moving with the emitter/detector (which we can call the e/d) has a single clock which he uses for both measurements. Other observers at rest in other frames can also use a single clock to time the light's journey from the e/d back to the e/d, and they will all measure that the red light moved faster relative to the material it was passing then the blue light did. All honest measurers agree with this.
Quote
Your problem is still the same as before. Perception is reality confined to the mind.
I'm not the one with the problem - you are, because all observers see that the red light moves faster relative to the material it passes through (while it's passing through it) than the blue light. [Note that if you average out its speed relative to the material by taking its speed relative to each bit of material throughout the entire trip, you cancel out the effect and hide from yourself the reality of what's happening, but that's the same mistake the Irish made when they built their first train line - they reckoned they could cope fine with a single track because they calculated that the average speed trains passed each other at would be zero, so they thought there was no possibility of them colliding, but they soon learned their mistake and built a second track.]
Quote
Each has their personal perception of events, BUT, perception does not influence the distant clock. Perception is the processing of images of the distant clock which is passive, looking at the clock does not affect it. That only happens if you are probing microscopic particles with light, as an example. You are confusing observations of an object with the behavior of the object.
I'm not confusing anything - you're the one failing to grasp what's going on in the thought experiment by imagining that you can play impossible games with observations of clocks. All observers saw the red light leave the e/d at the same moment as the blue light. All observers can see the blue light return to the e/d before the blue light. You appear now to be denying that these observations are valid on the basis that the behaviour of the clocks is not what the observers reading them observe! How can any scientist ever make any measurement then if they aren't allowed to believe the measurements they make? You have just banned all scientists from testing anything by experiment.
Post by: yor_on on 18/07/2018 06:42:13
What I mean is that by defining a 'fixed absolute frame', and proving it, the theory of relativity should be wrong. But that's not possible, at least as unlikely as being able to prove that we live on a turtle. too many experiments, and too many ways to describe how different frames present different physical effects, as in EM
Actually I think that was what Einstein gave his last thirty (?) years to. The way I got it was that he postulated a 'fifth dimension' where those observer dependencies could be explained away, from one 'whole universe' as seen there. He also brought some ideas to it that as I've read still is used in string theory. So maybe you're right after all, he did want a 'absolute frame' to go out from in a way. But that's not the theory of relativity, not as it stands for now at least.
One really need to notice our preconceptions here. Why he wanted the absolute frame is to me equivalent to the way we think that 'my universe is your universe'. The logic of it is 'shared', it has to be to allow a 'co existence', but that's all.
Post by: guest4091 on 18/07/2018 16:54:54
The observer co-moving with the emitter/detector (which we can call the e/d) has a single clock which he uses for both measurements. Other observers at rest in other frames can also use a single clock to time the light's journey from the e/d back to the e/d, and they will all measure that the red light moved faster relative to the material it was passing then the blue light did. All honest measurers agree with this.The speed of light is not defined relative to an object. It's defined relative to the vacuum of space (Einstein) or the ether (Lorentz). It is also a constant value and independent of moving matter. You are talking closing speeds.
Post by: David Cooper on 18/07/2018 20:14:40
The speed of light is not defined relative to an object. It's defined relative to the vacuum of space (Einstein) or the ether (Lorentz). It is also a constant value and independent of moving matter. You are talking closing speeds.
The term "closing speed" is badly formed as it implies that the two things are approaching each other. It therefore doesn't fit will with other cases of relative speed such as "passing speed" and "separation speed". "Relative speed" is a much better application of language and it's widely understood. Having dealt with the language issue though, what difference does it make to the price of fish? You can translate to "closing speed" in your head every time I say "speed relative to x", and then your mind can convert back to the idea of relative speed when it converts from language to semantic understanding, and then you can apply all that to the thought experiment. A frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to objects at rest in that frame (closing/passing/separation speed) is c. Some material has the property that light passing it in some directions is >c reltive to it (so the closing/passing/separation speed is >c). If a frame asserts that the closing/passing/separation speed between light and material with that property is c, then that frame is a misrepresentation of reality. No amount of playing language games will change the fact that the frame is making incorrect assertions and is therefore not a valid frame.
Post by: guest4091 on 19/07/2018 16:25:16
Relative speed is a good choice, but then, all speeds are relative, since position is relative.The speed of light is not defined relative to an object. It's defined relative to the vacuum of space (Einstein) or the ether (Lorentz). It is also a constant value and independent of moving matter. You are talking closing speeds.
The term "closing speed" is badly formed as it implies that the two things are approaching each other. It therefore doesn't fit will with other cases of relative speed such as "passing speed" and "separation speed". "Relative speed" is a much better application of language and it's widely understood. Having dealt with the language issue though, what difference does it make to the price of fish? You can translate to "closing speed" in your head every time I say "speed relative to x", and then your mind can convert back to the idea of relative speed when it converts from language to semantic understanding, and then you can apply all that to the thought experiment. A frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to objects at rest in that frame (closing/passing/separation speed) is c. Some material has the property that light passing it in some directions is >c reltive to it (so the closing/passing/separation speed is >c). If a frame asserts that the closing/passing/separation speed between light and material with that property is c, then that frame is a misrepresentation of reality. No amount of playing language games will change the fact that the frame is making incorrect assertions and is therefore not a valid frame.
Both versions of Relativity stipulate, measured light speed is constant and independent of it's source. The relative/closing speed varies with the speed of the object, and that doesn't agree with the theory. Example: speed of a water wave is determined by the medium. The speed of a wave relative to a boat would vary with the boat, and is something else. Now I'm just repeating what others have said. When experiments to measure light speed are done, no one gets a value other than c.
The pdf was the math to support SR that observations only depend on relative speed. An absolute frame is redundant.
Post by: David Cooper on 19/07/2018 20:30:04
Relative speed is a good choice, but then, all speeds are relative, since position is relative.
Indeed - all speeds are relative to something. The speed of light is c relative to the fabric of space that it travels through (unless it is slowed by obstacles or proximity to mass). The speed of light is also c relative to objects at rest in space. The speed of light is >c in some directions relative to any object that is not at rest in space. The speed of light relative to other light varies between 0 and 2c. If you play magic games with frames of reference though, you can assert that the only speeds of light relative to other light that are allowed are 0, 1.41c or 2c with all values in between being banned, and you are really required to do this if you want to insist that the speed of light relative to all objects is always c. Light moving at any angle other than 0 or 180 degrees to other light can be changed to a 90 degree angle simply by choosing a frame that makes it so, and this is the exact same transformation that you make when you change frame to make an object "at rest" so that the speed of light relative to it is c in all directions. Why would any physicist want to play such an idiotic game with light and light? They wouldn't. But they do play it with light and matter, and they can't see that it's the exact same idiotic game in both cases.
Quote
Both versions of Relativity stipulate, measured light speed is constant and independent of it's source. The relative/closing speed varies with the speed of the object, and that doesn't agree with the theory.
That sounds like an attack on SR, so I can't work out what you're trying to say, and your example (below) doesn't clarify things.
Quote
Example: speed of a water wave is determined by the medium. The speed of a wave relative to a boat would vary with the boat, and is something else.
The speed of a light wave is determined by the medium (fabric of space). The speed of an object relative to a light wave varies with the speed of the object. Just as the speed of a boat relative to a wave depends on the speeds and directions of travel of boat and wave, the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speeds and directions of travel of the light and the object. The cases are directly equivalent, and the only thing that makes light different from slower-speed waves is that light moves at the fastest possible speed through its medium, leading to an impossibility of measuring its actual speed relative to any object because of the phenomenon of relativity (Lorentz's) which explains in full why the true speed is always masked.
Quote
Now I'm just repeating what others have said. When experiments to measure light speed are done, no one gets a value other than c.
And that isn't in dispute. Lorentz's relativity tells you to expect that, so no amount of repeating it will add any relevance to the case in question. We have a thought experiment (backed by actual experiments) which shows that some light must pass some objects at >c relative to them, which means that any frame of reference that asserts that the speed of light relative to such objects is c in all directions is necessarily a misrepresentation of reality, and the existence of such invalid frames disproves SR.
Quote
The pdf was the math to support SR that observations only depend on relative speed. An absolute frame is redundant.
An absolute frame is not only mechanistically essential, but it is shown to exist by my thought experiment through the disqualification of all other frames on the basis that they misrepresent reality by asserting that objects don't have a property which they must have.
Post by: David Cooper on 19/07/2018 21:20:26
Why do people remain fixed in positions that have been shown through mathematical proof to be wrong? The red light passes all the material of the ring in a shorter time than the blue light does. The red light travels relative to some of that material at >c relative to it. Some material exists in our universe which has the property some of the time that some light travels past at >c relative to it. Any frame of reference that asserts that such material doesn't have that property when it does have that property is misrepresenting reality. As soon as one frame is shown to be doing this, Einstein's original SR model is disproved, at which point we should turn to exploring the other SR models (which have also been disproved by other means). What happens in these threads? There's a mathematical proof sitting there which no one can shoot down because it's correct, but they don't have the courage to admit it. Instead, they just go back to where they were in the next thread and parrot the old assertions about there being no absolute frame as if nothing has happened.
Post by: guest4091 on 21/07/2018 16:33:24
Quote
A frame of reference asserts that the speed of light relative to objects at rest in that frame (closing/passing/separation speed) is c.---
Frames don't make assertions!
The theory (SR or LET) states, 'The propagation speed of light in space, as measured in an inertial frame is a constant c, and independent of it's source'. That implies the light does not acquire the speed of the emitter. If the observer A in that frame concludes light speed should be c-v, since he is moving in the same direction at v (relative to the frame he left), a measurement will prove him wrong. If a 2nd observer B watches A and the light signal pass him, he will measure A moving at w and the light moving at c. He will also calculate the gap between A and the signal as increasing at c-w, but that fact is irrelevant, since the A and B measurements are independent of each other. If A and the signal moved in opposite directions, the gap speed would be c+w, and still be irrelevant, since the gap is not a material object. The gap has no direction of motion, thus it is not a velocity. There is nothing (no thing) violating postulate 2.
If c is constant and independent, it can't vary as c±v. That is definitely a contradiction so fundamental, there is no excuse for anyone, in any field, to not be able to comprehend it.
The moving observer cannot detect his own speed because it varies depending on the reference, thus cannot measure c±v.
---
Quote
Some material has the property that light passing it in some directions is >c reltive to it (so the closing/passing/separation speed is >c).---
If a frame asserts that the closing/passing/separation speed between light and material with that property is c, then that frame is a misrepresentation of reality.
The only property of materials that affects light speed is the 'index of refraction'.
Light takes more time to traverse 1 cm of glass than 1 cm of air.
You claim to have had an unpleasant experience in the early education system. Why should that lead to an attack on established scientific theories?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/07/2018 21:43:15
Frames don't make assertions!
Of course they do - whenever you pick a frame of reference to make an object "at rest" and the speed of light relative to it c in all directions, that frame necessarily asserts that the speed of light relative to itself (the frame), and by extension to any object at rest relative to itself (again the frame), is c.
Quote
The theory (SR or LET) states, 'The propagation speed of light in space, as measured in an inertial frame is a constant c, and independent of it's source'. That implies the light does not acquire the speed of the emitter.
Obviously. The frame dictates that the light moves relative to it (the frame) at c.
Quote
If the observer A in that frame concludes light speed should be c-v, since he is moving in the same direction at v (relative to the frame he left), a measurement will prove him wrong.
No measurement can prove him wrong - all he can do is measure the apparent speed of light relative to him, and that will come out as c even if the real speed of that light relative to him is c-v.
Quote
If a 2nd observer B watches A and the light signal pass him, he will measure A moving at w and the light moving at c. He will also calculate the gap between A and the signal as increasing at c-w, but that fact is irrelevant, since the A and B measurements are independent of each other. If A and the signal moved in opposite directions, the gap speed would be c+w, and still be irrelevant, since the gap is not a material object. The gap has no direction of motion, thus it is not a velocity. There is nothing (no thing) violating postulate 2.
Neither A nor B is capable of measuring the speed of light relative to anything other than the fabric of space, so that's all they are doing - they are not measuring the speed of light relative to themselves unless they happen to be at rest in space, so if they make any claim that the speed they're measuring is the speed of light relative to themselves, they are incompetent.
Quote
If c is constant and independent, it can't vary as c±v. That is definitely a contradiction so fundamental, there is no excuse for anyone, in any field, to not be able to comprehend it.
The speed of light does not vary at all relative to space (unless it is slowed by other material or the influence of gravity). Anyone who doesn't comprehend that is indeed incompetent, as is anyone who suggests that other people are failing to comprehend something that they fully comprehend and which they consistently apply in all their statements.
Quote
The moving observer cannot detect his own speed because it varies depending on the reference, thus cannot measure c±v.
Correct.
Quote
QuoteSome material has the property that light passing it in some directions is >c reltive to it (so the closing/passing/separation speed is >c).---
If a frame asserts that the closing/passing/separation speed between light and material with that property is c, then that frame is a misrepresentation of reality.
The only property of materials that affects light speed is the 'index of refraction'.
Light takes more time to traverse 1 cm of glass than 1 cm of air.
You are wilfully misunderstanding mathematical language in an attempt to ban me from describing an attribute of something as a property, and you could doubtless play the same language game with the word "attribute", but what you're actually doing is playing games with words instead of going on honest interpretation. The argument doesn't depend on the words "property" or "attribute" - I was simply using them as grammatical tools to link parts of different sentences to each other (to reduce the risk of referential failure), but the same job can be carried out by using the word "that":-
Light is passing some (or all) of the material of the ring at >c relative to it. Some of that material has light passing it in some directions at >c. A frame of reference that represents that material as being at rest is asserting that the speed of light relative to that material is c in all directions.
Quote
You claim to have had an unpleasant experience in the early education system. Why should that lead to an attack on established scientific theories?
What the heck is that? What kind of game are you trying to play now? I found school to be a waste of time because they spent the first seven years of it teaching me practically nothing - they stole a massive chunk of my childhood (which I could have made much better use of if I hadn't been stuck in what was little more than a prison) and gave me nothing in return. But why in the world would I turn that into a grudge against Einstein or anything else in science? Science and Einstein weren't to blame. You're attempting to play the man instead of the ball, but you're not going to get very far with that as I have no vices. I could bring up some of Einstein's failings, but I have no wish to describe them as they have nothing whatsoever to do with his theories - to resort to such tactics is a game for the losers of arguments rather than winners.
Your job is either to find a fault in the proof or to agree that it is correct, and you should be able to do one or the other in a very short time. If you are incapable of determining whether it is correct or incorrect, you are not sufficiently competent to make any assertions about the validity of SR (and the same applies to anyone else).
The theory and the proof that it's wrong are independent of the personalities involved, so they must be examined impartially on their own merits, and no amount of authority should be used to guide any judgements - they should stand or fall entirely by their own logic (and by how well they fit the facts of measurement). Remember too what Feynman said about theories: it doesn't matter how beautiful they are - if they don't fit the facts of experiments, they're wrong. Here we have have a theory which cannot account for the crucial difference between frames which misrepresent reality and frames which don't misrepresent it, and we also have a proof (backed by experiments) that some frames are misrepresenting reality. By Feynman's test, SR is dead.
So, if you think it's wrong, where does the proof break down?
Q1: Does the red light pass all the material of the ring in a shorter time than the blue light does?
Yes. To disagree with this is to go against the measurements of experiments like MGP and Sagnac.
Q2: Does the red light travel relative to some of that material at >c.
Yes. To disagree with this is to reject the measurements of actual experiments.
Q3: Does some material exist in our universe which has some light travelling past at >c relative to it in some directions?
Yes. To disagree with this is to reject the measurements of actual experiments.
Q4: Is a frame of reference that asserts that such material doesn't have light travelling past at >c relative to it misrepresenting reality?
Yes. To deny this is to fail to understand what frames of reference are.
Q5: Do frames exist that misrepresent reality in this way?
Yes. No other answer is rational if you answered "Yes" to the previous questions.
Q6: Does SR allow some frames to be less valid than others?
No. SR doesn't accept that there is any difference between frames which correctly represent reality and frames which misrepresent reality. SR is therefore incompetent as a model [while we're dealing with SR models where the speed of light is c as opposed to being zero or infinite as in Minkowski Spacetime versions - those other versions of SR can be disproved in other ways, although one can be "salvaged" by introducing Newtonian time into it in order to allow it to tolerate event-meshing failures and hide them over the course of Newtonian time].
Q7: Is it possible to extend the argument to show that only one frame can be a true representation of reality while all others are misrepresentations?
Yes, but there is no need to go that far to disprove SR as that job was done as soon as it was shown that there must exist at least one frame that misrepresents reality.
Post by: guest4091 on 24/07/2018 17:35:03
In the rotating ring experiment, E is the emitter/detector, t=d/c with d the circumference of the ring.
The red light moves opposite to the rotation and meets E at time<t.
The blue light moves with the rotation and overtakes E at time>t.
An observer in the ref. frame of the ring center knows the rotation affects the light transit time, and explains the difference in detection of the red and blue light. The space between red light and the detector is closing at c+v and the space between blue light and the detector is closing at c-v.
There is nothing moving at c±v.
The same experiment with opposite rotation would result in blue earlier and red later. This supports rotation as producing the results, not a change in light speed.
In a test for light speed over a measured distance, identical rods extending in opposite directions, the timing woud be equal, just as with inertial motion.
Post by: David Cooper on 24/07/2018 22:43:30
An observer in the ref. frame of the ring center knows the rotation affects the light transit time, and explains the difference in detection of the red and blue light.
Indeed it does.
Quote
The space between red light and the detector is closing at c+v and the space between blue light and the detector is closing at c-v.
There is nothing moving at c±v.
The light is moving at c at all times. E may be speeding up and slowing down as it goes round, but it could also be moving at a constant speed - different frames of reference make up different stories about what it's doing. All frames of reference agree on one point though, and that is that the red light passes through the material of the cable at >c relative to it (while passing through it), while the blue light passes through that same material at <c relative to it. No amount of ignoring that fact (and fixating on other issues as a diversion) will make it go away.
The material of the ring has a length, and that length is the same in both directions round the ring. The two lots of light travel at different speeds relative to that material. (This should be measured sector by sector with the ring divided up into lots of sectors because we don't want to hide the effect from ourselves by taking the speed of the light relative to each point for the full journey of the light - we are interested in the relative speed of the light to each atom that it passes at the point of nearest approach.) If you do this maths in a competent manner, as a real scientist should, you must determine that the red light passed the material of the ring at an average relative speed >c. This guarantees that the red light passes some of that material at a relative speed >c. Some material therefore exists which some of the time has light pass it at >c relative to it. Any frame of reference which asserts that light passes such material at c relative to it in all directions at a time when light is actually passing it at >c relative to it is therefore misrepresenting reality. Some frames do exactly that, so some frames are not valid. SR doesn't allow them not to be valid. SR therefore fails to match up to the real universe.
Quote
The same experiment with opposite rotation would result in blue earlier and red later. This supports rotation as producing the results, not a change in light speed.
No one is claiming there's a change in light speed.
Quote
In a test for light speed over a measured distance, identical rods extending in opposite directions, the timing woud be equal, just as with inertial motion.
In the case of a straight line course, what you do is synchronise clocks on the basis that the course is at rest and then use those timings to measure the apparent speed of light. If you then accelerate the course so that it's no longer at rest in the original frame, you use a different synchronisation and declare it to be at rest in a new frame, then you make measurements as before and again get the apparent speed of light from them. What you have done is change your assertion of the speed of light relative to an observer who is at rest in the first frame throughout. The frame asserts that light passed that observer at c relative to him in all directions. The new frame asserts that light passes him at >c relative to him in some directions. You simply change frame as it suits you to put things at rest in a frame so that you can always claim that the speed of light is c in all directions relative to those things, and you completely ignore the fact that every other frame disagrees with that assertion. You have been programmed to ignore the infinite number of contradictions that this silly theory generates. You have been taken in by this voodoo because someone can always show you a frame which makes the speed of light c relative to any object c in all directions relative to it and then appeal to authority to make you conform. However, we now have this case where the speed of light relative to the material of the ring is on average >c as measured from ALL frames, so you can't switch to any frame that hides the truth from you and sweep all the contradictions under the carpet (the assertions of relative speeds >c which all other frames are making). It this case, all frames make the same assertion and there is nowhere for you to hide from the reality of it: the truth is that light must be passing some material at >c, and no amount of playing frame-shifting games can brush that under the carpet. The reality is starkly exposed: that some frames misrepresent reality.
Post by: guest4091 on 26/07/2018 19:33:19
The reality is starkly exposed: that some frames misrepresent reality.From the LT, t’= γt, and x’= γx, with t and x coordinates in U, the abs. rest frame.
The combined effect of time dilation and length contraction results in the A frame being scaled by 1/γ relative to the U frame. Since any inertial frame is equivalent to a scaled U frame, with (γx/γt) = x/t, all inertial frames inherit the same relations expressed in terms of space (x) and time (t). Therefore any inertial frame may serve as a reference frame. The first postulate of SR is now a consequence of the second.
Any observer in any inertial frame may use the same expression, x/t=v to calulate speed. If v=c in the U frame, then v will =c in all inertial frames. That is the proof to support the 2nd postulate. If you don’t understand this, the problem is not with SR, but with your interpretations.
Post by: David Cooper on 26/07/2018 21:14:47
From the LT, t’= γt, and x’= γx, with t and x coordinates in U, the abs. rest frame.
The combined effect of time dilation and length contraction results in the A frame being scaled by 1/γ relative to the U frame. Since any inertial frame is equivalent to a scaled U frame, with (γx/γt) = x/t, all inertial frames inherit the same relations expressed in terms of space (x) and time (t). Therefore any inertial frame may serve as a reference frame. The first postulate of SR is now a consequence of the second.
Of course any inertial frame may serve as a reference frame, but only one such frame (at most) can represent reality correctly (at any location). Any change of frame is a change in the asserted speed of light in some directions relative to an object: you are switching from one frame to a different one which produces an incompatible account of the speed relationships between things (including light), and to claim that both are true representations of reality is an illegal mathematical move. This is secretly recognised by the people at the top in the SR camp who already know that it is irrational, which is why they switch over to a Minkowski Spacetime model where light has no speed because it reduces all paths for light to zero length (which again they don't like to state openly because it sounds so ridiculous), although they still try to have their cake and eat it - the only way they can maintain this idiocy is by using three different incompatible disproved SR models and pretending they are all the same model in order to provide the illusion that they work, but when you interrogate them by simulating them in a computer, they all fail to function as claimed and need to be patched by bringing in things that are external to the model (and in each case specifically banned from it).
Quote
Any observer in any inertial frame may use the same expression, x/t=v to calulate speed. If v=c in the U frame, then v will =c in all inertial frames. That is the proof to support the 2nd postulate. If you don’t understand this, the problem is not with SR, but with your interpretations.
You appear to be incapable of understanding the issue (although it may be deliberate avoidance as you continue to bury your head deeper and deeper in the sand). No amount of calculating the apparent speed of light relative to you to be c will make the actual speed of light c relative to you, and no amount of switching frame and recalculating using maths that's guaranteed to go on throwing the same value c at you every time will make the actual speed of light relative to everything c. My thought experiment proves that the speed of light relative to some things is >c, but you're unwilling to accept that purely because it goes against an irrational belief which you have carelessly allowed to take over your mind. You studiously ignore the facts, just like religious people do when their beliefs are questioned. Look at what your beliefs have done to you - you are incapable of agreeing that the speed of light relative to some material in the ring must be >c, even though anyone with any competence with maths can see that this has to be the case. Why are you rejecting facts? Why are you backing belief over facts? If Galileo showed someone the moons of Jupiter through his telescope and that religious person told him they aren't there and that he's making it all up, what would you think of that person who acts as a mindless tool of an irrational belief system which is rooted solely in authority? Why do you just trust the people who told you that SR is right instead of interrogating it properly to see if it really works? The most shocking thing here is that you can't bring yourself to agree that the speed of light relative to some material in the ring must be >c even though we have two lots of light passing through it in opposite directions at c with one lot completing the trip in less time than the other lot. What do you do instead? Ignore the evidence. Divert attention away from the evidence. Accuse me of attacking SR out of a grudge! Tell me I don't understand something irrelevant that I fully understand. State irrelevant things about c which LET fully agrees with. You squirm about all over the place instead of committing yourself to direct answers to the key questions. Why is something that's supposed to be scientific being defended through such unacceptable tactics instead of through honest examination of facts? (And it's not just here - the same irrational defenders of the faith are in evidence on every science forum on the Net, all making the same illegal moves while studiously ignoring the facts that are placed before them.) On this issue (relativity), you're not doing science; but religion.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/07/2018 08:39:14
Post by: guest4091 on 27/07/2018 20:11:49
Quote
My thought experiment proves that the speed of light relative to some things is >c,A moves left at .6c and B moves right at .6c.
My thought experiment proves that the speed of A relative to B is >c.
So what?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/07/2018 00:23:46
A thought experiment cannot prove anything. It can only produce more or less logical deductions from its initial premises. Navigating around the world with a ring laser gyroscope suggests that relativity is correct.
My thought experiment has inadvertently been done for real though: experiments like MGP and Sagnac prove that it would work exactly the way I've described. This means that SR has been tested and found to fail to match up to reality because it claims there is no difference between frames which misrepresent reality and frames which don't.
Post by: David Cooper on 28/07/2018 00:29:38
DC;QuoteMy thought experiment proves that the speed of light relative to some things is >c,A moves left at .6c and B moves right at .6c.
My thought experiment proves that the speed of A relative to B is >c.
So what?
You can switch to a frame where the asserted relative speed between them is <c and then play your usual game where that is more important than the claim of the first frame used for the measurements which contradict it. The key thing with my thought experiment (which has been done for real) is that there is no frame which you can switch to to eliminate the measurements showing light moving at >c relative to some of the material of the ring as it passes it. This means that some material certainly exists which has light pass it in some directions at >c relative to it rather than at c, and as soon as we know that such material must exist, we also know that any frame which represents that material as having light pass it at c relative to it in all directions is misrepresenting reality. You have had this explained to you dozens of times now, and yet you refuse to take it on board.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/07/2018 08:14:32
This means that SR has been tested and found to fail to match up to reality because it claims there is no difference between frames which misrepresent reality and frames which don't.
Do you write Donald Trump's speeches? "According to Special Relativity, all lies are equivalent to the truth", eh? Genius.
Post by: guest4091 on 28/07/2018 16:53:36
You have had this explained to you dozens of times now, and yet you refuse to take it on board.Look in the mirror.
And the rotating frame is absolute motion, since all parts are moving at different speeds and there can be no reciprocal frame. You don't recognize proof when you see it!
Your assessment of my abilities makes me wonder if I can still make toast in the morning.
Post by: David Cooper on 28/07/2018 19:30:09
This means that SR has been tested and found to fail to match up to reality because it claims there is no difference between frames which misrepresent reality and frames which don't.
Do you write Donald Trump's speeches? "According to Special Relativity, all lies are equivalent to the truth", eh? Genius.
You're on the Donald Trump side here - he wants to have his cake and eat it, telling different people different things and making out that they're all true, and your lot do the same with frames of reference. Different frames are incompatible with each other, making contradictory assertions about reality. You want all of those claims to be true, but they cannot be.
Post by: David Cooper on 28/07/2018 20:09:32
You have had this explained to you dozens of times now, and yet you refuse to take it on board.Look in the mirror.
I test things to see if or where they break, and when they break I reject them. You don't - you cling to broken ideas where you're too emotionally attached to them to let go. I've shown you where SR breaks and you've had ample opportunity to show where my proof breaks down, but you've failed to do that because it is not possible to do so. You've failed, but you're stubbornly determined that you must be right because you have authority on your side, just as religious people do, and for you, that overrides mathematics.
Quote
And the rotating frame is absolute motion, since all parts are moving at different speeds and there can be no reciprocal frame. You don't recognize proof when you see it!
You're still playing games of avoidance, and it's avoidance of the key facts. You are selectively rejecting some parts of mathematics in order to pretend that a stuffed donkey is a living racehorse. You, and everyone like you in physics, are bringing science into disrepute by playing fast and loose with the rules.
Does the red light move faster than >c relative to some of the material of the ring that it's passing through as measured in all frames of reference? The answer's yes, but you refuse to admit it because you know that this is the point where you lose and you think you can hide the loss by not answering.
Quote
Your assessment of my abilities makes me wonder if I can still make toast in the morning.
Religious people can make good toast. It's their ability to reason that is in question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/07/2018 21:51:23
Would anyone like to explain how it's plausible that SR has been refuted, but nobody bothered to mention it?
Post by: David Cooper on 29/07/2018 20:10:41
I can't help thinking that, if SR had failed, I'd have heard about it on the national news, rather than some web page here.
Would anyone like to explain how it's plausible that SR has been refuted, but nobody bothered to mention it?
You have a strange view of journalism. Have you never seen a news report on any issue where you have a lot of knowledge and been horrified at how a reporter mangles the story and gets half the details wrong? That is the norm in the news business. On this specific issue, none of them have any understanding of relativity beyond recognising a picture of Einstein sticking out his tongue at the photographer.
Theories should be judged directly through reasoning and mathematics, and so should proofs. What we have though is an establishment bent on defending an irrational theory while suppressing a rational one which is backed by all the same experiments, and these defenders of the faith are determined not to allow anything to be referred up to the point where the media would get excited about a major change to the required religious dogma. That's why this is such a great experiment, watching to see how people who imagine themselves to be scientific of mind reduce themselves to the level of worshippers who kiss the feet of dead saints rather than allowing reason to correct errors in their model of reality. Science is supposed to be self correcting, but it's failing miserably in this case because it has put the authority of a priesthood before mathematics, and it is now actively spitting on maths by trying to ridicule its application here. It is clear to anyone impartial who reads this that you have no respect for the measurements of experiments and the truths which they reveal because none of you are capable of acknowledging that the red light passes through some of the material of the ring at a speed >c relative to it even though that reality is staring you in the face. How did you get yourselves into such a sorry state that you can't accept such a simple truth? It's exactly like the clergy looking through a telescope at the moons of Jupiter and refusing to see them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2018 20:41:51
His response was that, if his theory had been wrong then a single student's word would have been sufficient to prove it.
I'm well aware of the inability of journalists to grasp science- even the ones labelled as "science correspondents" .
But, one way or another I'd still expect to hear either a story that said
"Einstein wrong" or
"mad fool claims that Einstein is wrong".
They say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I wonder how they sleep with that hungry tiger in their room.
Sometimes, absence of evidence is rather strong evidence of absence.
Thus far I have seen no evidence of a refutation.
Post by: David Cooper on 29/07/2018 21:32:12
I forget the detail, but the story is told of a bunch of Nazi "scientists" - all professors and doctors and such, seeking to discredit Einstein's work.
His response was that, if his theory had been wrong then a single student's word would have been sufficient to prove it.
He underestimated his own ability to be elevated to the status of sainthood. He also believed that science is self-correcting, not realising how powerful the clergy can be when it stands in the way of doing science properly.
Quote
But, one way or another I'd still expect to hear either a story that said
"Einstein wrong" or
"mad fool claims that Einstein is wrong".
The latter wouldn't be a story as it happens seven times a week. What prevents the former is in large part the proliferation of the mad fools who claim Einstein's wrong on the basis that they disagree with the results of experiments, usually because of some imagined failing of an early version of an experiment where later versions have verified it and improved its accuracy by many magnitudes. There is a wall of nutters which drowns out the voices of anyone serious. Then there's a wall of enforcers of the authority who see it as their job to prevent any challenge to their holy cow from being put to the bishops and popes - nothing gets referred on up, so even if the people right at the top are genuinely open to the mechanism of science's self correction, they simply never see the argument.
Quote
Thus far I have seen no evidence of a refutation.
All you're being asked to do is answer simple questions, such as whether the red light passes through some of the material of the ring at speeds >c relative to it, but you simply ignore questions which you don't like and assert that there's no evidence of there. If you were honest with yourself, you would be able to provide the answer yes (which is correct) or no (which is wrong), but you inwardly know that the answer is yes and that you don't want it to be so, which is why you hide from it and play games instead. By running away from it, you have all proved that you know damn well I'm right.
If I was wrong, there are a dozen people here who would be jumping in with great glee to show why the correct answer to that question is no, but they aren't going to do that because they know they can't overturn the reality that the correct answer is yes.