0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Quote from: Kryptid on 10/10/2019 16:24:02 You already tried that argument and it didn't work. The equation you offered predicted a linear relationship between velocity and red shift, whereas relativity predicts an exponential one. Relativity's prediction is the one with experimental support. You tried to save the equation by claiming that you have to use "universal velocity" instead of relative velocity, but that makes the problem worse. If we did live in a world with an absolute reference frame and red shift was dependent upon absolute velocity, then the radar guns used by police officers would have to be continually calibrated throughout the day and year to reflect that change in velocity over time due to the Earth's rotation and orbit.If what you are claiming instead is that we have to measure the difference in the universal velocity of the car and the universal velocity of the radar gun, then that simplifies right back to relative velocity again. It doesn't matter if the Milky Way galaxy was sitting still or moving at 50% the speed of light in some absolute frame: the red shift detected by the radar gun would be the exact same because it's measuring relative velocity. That was known long before special relativity was even conceived of.Time dilation is also far from the only observable prediction of relativity.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of quadrupolar gravitational waves.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of mass-energy conversion.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the precession of mercury's orbit.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the decay rate of neutron star's orbits.

You already tried that argument and it didn't work. The equation you offered predicted a linear relationship between velocity and red shift, whereas relativity predicts an exponential one. Relativity's prediction is the one with experimental support. You tried to save the equation by claiming that you have to use "universal velocity" instead of relative velocity, but that makes the problem worse. If we did live in a world with an absolute reference frame and red shift was dependent upon absolute velocity, then the radar guns used by police officers would have to be continually calibrated throughout the day and year to reflect that change in velocity over time due to the Earth's rotation and orbit.If what you are claiming instead is that we have to measure the difference in the universal velocity of the car and the universal velocity of the radar gun, then that simplifies right back to relative velocity again. It doesn't matter if the Milky Way galaxy was sitting still or moving at 50% the speed of light in some absolute frame: the red shift detected by the radar gun would be the exact same because it's measuring relative velocity. That was known long before special relativity was even conceived of.Time dilation is also far from the only observable prediction of relativity.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of quadrupolar gravitational waves.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of mass-energy conversion.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the precession of mercury's orbit.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the decay rate of neutron star's orbits.

All I see is a quoting of my posts.

Quote from: xersanozgen on 12/10/2019 13:06:39Quote from: Kryptid on 10/10/2019 16:24:02 You already tried that argument and it didn't work. The equation you offered predicted a linear relationship between velocity and red shift, whereas relativity predicts an exponential one. Relativity's prediction is the one with experimental support. You tried to save the equation by claiming that you have to use "universal velocity" instead of relative velocity, but that makes the problem worse. If we did live in a world with an absolute reference frame and red shift was dependent upon absolute velocity, then the radar guns used by police officers would have to be continually calibrated throughout the day and year to reflect that change in velocity over time due to the Earth's rotation and orbit.If what you are claiming instead is that we have to measure the difference in the universal velocity of the car and the universal velocity of the radar gun, then that simplifies right back to relative velocity again. It doesn't matter if the Milky Way galaxy was sitting still or moving at 50% the speed of light in some absolute frame: the red shift detected by the radar gun would be the exact same because it's measuring relative velocity. That was known long before special relativity was even conceived of.Time dilation is also far from the only observable prediction of relativity.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of quadrupolar gravitational waves.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the observation of mass-energy conversion.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the precession of mercury's orbit.An illusion caused by the finite speed of light cannot explain the decay rate of neutron star's orbits.All I see is a quoting of my posts.

Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent.

As seen, visual perceiving does not need an exponential function of parameters.

The subject of Radar: We never see any think simultaneously because of the finite/limited value of light’s velocity theoretically. However we have not any problem for nearby objects. So, negligible effects are mentioned. You are right radar system never gives exact results; but it is functional for our local distances.

Your additional proofs are not my interest area.

I study astronomy, cosmology, light kinematics.

Quote from: xersanozgen on 12/10/2019 16:22:17Therefore the root postulate of SR is not consistent. "not consistent" with what?It agrees with every single experiment ever done.

you must in some way find him to be some sort of imminent threat towards science.

And besides , this forum is full of sh1t dick eds. Go fk yourselves , cya

If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g you would theoretically be travelling at the speed of light in about 1 year. Could you then just keep accelerating at that rate without ever cracking the speed of light?

If you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g

Quote from: EmilelixIf you could constantly accelerate at the rate of 1g Then, even ignoring relativity, the power requirement would rise continuously.Sooner or later you run pot of power.