[GoC (OP)]

"The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference."

That is not a relativity postulate. Light is measured to be c in all inertial frames in a vacuum. There is a distinction that creates a problem for your understanding and causes your confusion. Just because you measure something does not make your measurement an accurate value.

Which means SR has no absolute frame, or rather that it has an infinite number of absolute frames which conflict with each other mechanistically.

There is no conflict. There is one absolute frame "c".

No. I'm actually using 87% the speed of light (the 90% merely being one speed suggested by the teacher). When he set the clocks to tick faster, he set them to tick twice as quickly as normal. If we assume that the desk is stationary and call the frame in which it is stationary Frame A, we are going to set up a clock synchronisation and tick rate for Frame B which is a frame moving at 87%c relative to the desk. The Frame B view of the desk, once converted to the "God view", will show time running at half speed for the classroom, but the two clocks will be ticking at the same rate as Frame B's clocks in their analysis, so that's why we have the clocks ticking faster. The desk is moving through their "God view" analysis at 87%c with its action slowed to half rate, but the clocks appear unslowed because they're ticking twice as fast as any other clocks in the classroom. The synchronisation of these clocks means that they are displaying the same time as each other in that Frame B "God view" analysis. This is how we are able to perform a Frame B measurement of the amount of Frame B's time taken for light to go from one end of the desk to the other.

Clocks only measure the available energy of a frame and not what energy is being used for velocity. So your clocks tick at the same relative rate in a vacuum to distance. Physics is the same in every frame relative to that frames reaction rate of available energy not being used for velocity.
You cannot measure light with light and determine your velocity relative to light. All measurements in all inertial frames measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. You cannot use that to say light runs at different speeds. It has a deeper meaning than the surface value measured.

Of course you get 74ns (at 87%c) - it's exactly the same value you would record for light overtaking a desk that's moving past you at 87%c when you consider yourself to be stationary and synchronise your clocks on that basis. All I've done is allow you to make a Frame B measurement of a desk that you're co-moving with while you (and the desk) are at rest in Frame A.

Each frame has its own speed and measurement that has no value in another frame. You cannot mix frames and get anything useful. In Co-moving desks neither desk would view the other as perpendicular. Each desk would view the other as behind. Simultaneity of Relativity. Gods eye would view them as perpendicular. But not using 87% relative light.

 

I can't make sense of that word salad. All synchronisations should be equally valid in SR so long as if they map to possible frames, which means both measurements of the length of the desk should be equally valid in SR. The fact that they contradict each other is not my problem, but is simply a result of SR using the crude trick of changing the speed of light across an object whenever the frame of analysis changes.

It is your problem with understanding relativity properly. No view is valid!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no contradiction because no view is valid. All views are equally valid is saying no view is valid over another. Each has its own distance measurements for its clock measurements. You change two measurements not just the one for timing. Do you understand fractal relationships?

You are not the ideal person to defend SR because you are such a long way from understanding what SR is and what it asserts. There is nothing "straw man" about what I'm showing you when I reveal the crude trick that SR is playing on people - every change of frame changes the speed of light across every object (relative to that object) and leads to many events unhappening.

No,no,no,no,no The object changes its speed across light. There is no trick other than understanding the true nature of SR. How you understand it is just incorrect.

The problem here is that you don't understand SR and are repeatedly misrepresenting it

I would agree one of us is misrepresenting it. Words have different meanings to different people. The relative speed of light is not the same in every frame. The measured speed of light is the same in every frame. That is actually necessary for light to be constant.

Outside of a gravity well, c is constant, moving through space at a fixed speed. When two objects pass each other, light cannot be moving past both of them in all directions at c relative to both of them.

Of course not. They are measured to be c with that frames distance and clock measurements. There is no fixed frame for measurement. You cannot use c to measure c.

SR makes out that it can, but it's claiming something impossible.

Your interpretation of measurements having a fixed distance for c between frames is the impossible belief.

If light is moving past object A at c in all directions relative to object A while object B is moving past object B, light cannot also be moving past object B in all directions at c relative to object B. As soon as someone is programmed to believe that it can be, they have been taken away from rationality to become citizens of Narnia.

No measurement is valid. To believe the measurement represents the true speed of light in any one frame is at fault in your reasoning. There is no fixed frame except c. You cannot measure c by c.

[David Cooper]

"The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference."

That is not a relativity postulate.

Google says it is.

Light is measured to be c in all inertial frames in a vacuum. There is a distinction that creates a problem for your understanding and causes your confusion. Just because you measure something does not make your measurement an accurate value.

You're now giving me the LET interpretation where the speed of light relative to us isn't necessarily c (and almost always isn't). That is not the SR interpretation.

There is no conflict. There is one absolute frame "c".

Whether you're doing SR or LET, c is not a frame.

Clocks only measure the available energy of a frame and not what energy is being used for velocity. So your clocks tick at the same relative rate in a vacuum to distance. Physics is the same in every frame relative to that frames reaction rate of available energy not being used for velocity.
You cannot measure light with light and determine your velocity relative to light. All measurements in all inertial frames measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. You cannot use that to say light runs at different speeds. It has a deeper meaning than the surface value measured.

Which part of that is supposed to invalidate my method for making a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across the desk as made by someone at rest with the desk in Frame A? I have provided a correct method for making that measurement. You can make a measurement for the frame of your choice by adjusting the synchronisation of the clocks and their tick rate.

Each frame has its own speed and measurement that has no value in another frame. You cannot mix frames and get anything useful.

That's the whole point - they're not compatible with each other because each frame theorises a different absolute frame and has different speeds of light across all objects relative to those objects from the speeds asserted for other frames. If one frame actually matches up to reality, none of the other frames do because their asserted speeds of light across objects (relative to those objects) are wrong.

In Co-moving desks neither desk would view the other as perpendicular. Each desk would view the other as behind. Simultaneity of Relativity. Gods eye would view them as perpendicular. But not using 87% relative light.

Everything can be converted to God views so there is no need to get bogged down in complexities relating to communication delays.

It is your problem with understanding relativity properly. No view is valid!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no contradiction because no view is valid. All views are equally valid is saying no view is valid over another. Each has its own distance measurements for its clock measurements.

I don't know exactly what you intend to say when you claim no view is valid, but one God view is valid and the rest are wrong. SR claims that all of them are valid. You are not speaking for SR.

You change two measurements not just the one for timing. Do you understand fractal relationships?

Of course you're changing two measurements, and the consequence is that you have events unhappen every time you change frame, which should (for any rational person) show you that SR is playing a trick that can't match up to the real universe.

No,no,no,no,no The object changes its speed across light. There is no trick other than understanding the true nature of SR. How you understand it is just incorrect.

Because of this mathematical warping, events unhappen every time you change frame - that's magic, not physics.

I would agree one of us is misrepresenting it. Words have different meanings to different people. The relative speed of light is not the same in every frame.

That's an LET claim.

The measured speed of light is the same in every frame.

The measured speed of light relative to an object moving through a frame is (in most directions) not c.

Outside of a gravity well, c is constant, moving through space at a fixed speed. When two objects pass each other, light cannot be moving past both of them in all directions at c relative to both of them.

Of course not. They are measured to be c with that frames distance and clock measurements. There is no fixed frame for measurement. You cannot use c to measure c.

I'm using a single frame with two desks, one at rest in that frame and the other not. I measure the speed of light across the desks and it is faster relative to one than the other. The speed of light relative to objects is not always c and can be measured as not being c. If you change frame to hypothesise that the other object is at rest, you then reverse the result, but the consequence of this cheap trick if you try to run the universe on this model is that many events must unhappen every time you change frame. If you tolerate that, you are doing magic and not physics. Some of the top SR people understand that, which is why they have retreated to the eternal static block universe model where these problems don't occur (until they try to account for the generation of the block, at which point they just close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and sing a long note while flapping their tongues against their lips to try to drone out all input).

Your interpretation of measurements having a fixed distance for c between frames is the impossible belief.

Consequence: many events must unhappen whenever you change frame. Not science, but magic.

No measurement is valid. To believe the measurement represents the true speed of light in any one frame is at fault in your reasoning. There is no fixed frame except c. You cannot measure c by c.

I refer you to my reply to the previous point. A model that makes many events unhappen whenever the universe changes the frame it's using to coordinate the unfolding of events is not a model of the real universe.

[GoC (OP)]

Google says it is.

Einstein begs to differ. I follow his interpretation over google.

You're now giving me the LET interpretation where the speed of light relative to us isn't necessarily c (and almost always isn't). That is not the SR interpretation.

If google gives you a different postulate than Einstein your going with google for the SR interpretation over Einstein's.

Whether you're doing SR or LET, c is not a frame.

c is what creates all of the frames.

Which part of that is supposed to invalidate my method for making a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across the desk as made by someone at rest with the desk in Frame A? I have provided a correct method for making that measurement. You can make a measurement for the frame of your choice by adjusting the synchronisation of the clocks and their tick rate.

You are not following relativity using one frames measuring stick with another frames clock tick rate.

That's the whole point - they're not compatible with each other because each frame theorises a different absolute frame and has different speeds of light across all objects relative to those objects from the speeds asserted for other frames. If one frame actually matches up to reality, none of the other frames do because their asserted speeds of light across objects (relative to those objects) are wrong.

This goes back to you not understanding the postulate as described by Einstein. Measurement by any frames measuring stick and tick rate measure the speed of light the same as any other. The faster you go the longer your measuring stick and slower your tick rate to match c. It is a fractal issue all based on c as the absolute frame. Suns so large that they have attraction faster than the speed of light create a BH.

I don't know exactly what you intend to say when you claim no view is valid, but one God view is valid and the rest are wrong. SR claims that all of them are valid. You are not speaking for SR.

Once again lets look at what Einstein said. You seem not to understand the nuances of Einstein's words. SR does not claim all views are valid. Einstein's claim was all frames are equally valid. Equally valid is actually the same as equally not valid. You change the sentence and you change the meaning. You are forcing relativity to be incorrect by changing the wording.

 

Of course you're changing two measurements, and the consequence is that you have events unhappen every time you change frame, which should (for any rational person) show you that SR is playing a trick that can't match up to the real universe.

You must conclude that I am unreasonable while I conclude that you do not understand your fractal environment based on everyone in the present.

I'm using a single frame with two desks, one at rest in that frame and the other not. I measure the speed of light across the desks and it is faster relative to one than the other.

Yes.

The speed of light relative to objects is not always c and can be measured as not being c.

Only if your doing the measurement wrong.

"The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference."

That is not a relativity postulate.

Google says it is.

Light is measured to be c in all inertial frames in a vacuum. There is a distinction that creates a problem for your understanding and causes your confusion. Just because you measure something does not make your measurement an accurate value.

You're now giving me the LET interpretation where the speed of light relative to us isn't necessarily c (and almost always isn't). That is not the SR interpretation.

There is no conflict. There is one absolute frame "c".

Whether you're doing SR or LET, c is not a frame.

Clocks only measure the available energy of a frame and not what energy is being used for velocity. So your clocks tick at the same relative rate in a vacuum to distance. Physics is the same in every frame relative to that frames reaction rate of available energy not being used for velocity.
You cannot measure light with light and determine your velocity relative to light. All measurements in all inertial frames measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. You cannot use that to say light runs at different speeds. It has a deeper meaning than the surface value measured.

Which part of that is supposed to invalidate my method for making a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across the desk as made by someone at rest with the desk in Frame A? I have provided a correct method for making that measurement. You can make a measurement for the frame of your choice by adjusting the synchronisation of the clocks and their tick rate.

Each frame has its own speed and measurement that has no value in another frame. You cannot mix frames and get anything useful.

That's the whole point - they're not compatible with each other because each frame theorises a different absolute frame and has different speeds of light across all objects relative to those objects from the speeds asserted for other frames. If one frame actually matches up to reality, none of the other frames do because their asserted speeds of light across objects (relative to those objects) are wrong.

In Co-moving desks neither desk would view the other as perpendicular. Each desk would view the other as behind. Simultaneity of Relativity. Gods eye would view them as perpendicular. But not using 87% relative light.

Everything can be converted to God views so there is no need to get bogged down in complexities relating to communication delays.

It is your problem with understanding relativity properly. No view is valid!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no contradiction because no view is valid. All views are equally valid is saying no view is valid over another. Each has its own distance measurements for its clock measurements.

I don't know exactly what you intend to say when you claim no view is valid, but one God view is valid and the rest are wrong. SR claims that all of them are valid. You are not speaking for SR.

You change two measurements not just the one for timing. Do you understand fractal relationships?

Of course you're changing two measurements, and the consequence is that you have events unhappen every time you change frame, which should (for any rational person) show you that SR is playing a trick that can't match up to the real universe.

No,no,no,no,no The object changes its speed across light. There is no trick other than understanding the true nature of SR. How you understand it is just incorrect.

Because of this mathematical warping, events unhappen every time you change frame - that's magic, not physics.

I would agree one of us is misrepresenting it. Words have different meanings to different people. The relative speed of light is not the same in every frame.

That's an LET claim.

The measured speed of light is the same in every frame.

The measured speed of light relative to an object moving through a frame is (in most directions) not c.

Outside of a gravity well, c is constant, moving through space at a fixed speed. When two objects pass each other, light cannot be moving past both of them in all directions at c relative to both of them.

Of course not. They are measured to be c with that frames distance and clock measurements. There is no fixed frame for measurement. You cannot use c to measure c.

I'm using a single frame with two desks, one at rest in that frame and the other not. I measure the speed of light across the desks and it is faster relative to one than the other. The speed of light relative to objects is not always c and can be measured as not being c. If you change frame to hypothesise that the other object is at rest, you then reverse the result, but the consequence of this cheap trick if you try to run the universe on this model is that many events must unhappen every time you change frame. If you tolerate that, you are doing magic and not physics. Some of the top SR people understand that, which is why they have retreated to the eternal static block universe model where these problems don't occur (until they try to account for the generation of the block, at which point they just close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and sing a long note while flapping their tongues against their lips to try to drone out all input).

Your interpretation of measurements having a fixed distance for c between frames is the impossible belief.

Consequence: many events must unhappen whenever you change frame. Not science, but magic.

No measurement is valid. To believe the measurement represents the true speed of light in any one frame is at fault in your reasoning. There is no fixed frame except c. You cannot measure c by c.

I refer you to my reply to the previous point. A model that makes many events unhappen whenever the universe changes the frame it's using to coordinate the unfolding of events is not a model of the real universe.

Your interpretation of wording causes the unfolding of events. The distance light travels further is the timed speed of light in a frame. You can only measure the speed of light in every frame not the relative speed of light in every frame. The speed of light is constant.

[David Cooper]

Google says it is.

Einstein begs to differ. I follow his interpretation over google.

Google supplies links to a variety of respectable sources which all agree with the postulate I provided. Do you want it in German instead, perhaps?

If google gives you a different postulate than Einstein your going with google for the SR interpretation over Einstein's.

Or perhaps you could supply the postulates yourself, since you appear to disagree with everyone else as to what they are.

c is what creates all of the frames.

...but is not itself a frame of reference.

You are not following relativity using one frames measuring stick with another frames clock tick rate.

It doesn't matter - I'm getting a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across an object relative to that object where that object is at rest in Frame A. This is just the same as using a Frame A measurement of the speed of light across an object moving through Frame A - it produces a speed of light relative to that object which is not equal to c.

This goes back to you not understanding the postulate as described by Einstein. Measurement by any frames measuring stick and tick rate measure the speed of light the same as any other. The faster you go the longer your measuring stick and slower your tick rate to match c. It is a fractal issue all based on c as the absolute frame. Suns so large that they have attraction faster than the speed of light create a BH.

What you need to understand about all these frames is that they all hold the same content. If the speed of light across an object is c relative to that object in every direction in one frame, it cannot also be c across that object relative to that object in every direction in any other frame. The theories about what's happening that each frame generates are incompatible with each other, and the result of this is the unhappening of events when you change frame which reveal the error in your thinking. That you are incapable of understanding that does not equate to you being right.

Once again lets look at what Einstein said. You seem not to understand the nuances of Einstein's words. SR does not claim all views are valid. Einstein's claim was all frames are equally valid. Equally valid is actually the same as equally not valid. You change the sentence and you change the meaning. You are forcing relativity to be incorrect by changing the wording.

You are being ridiculous there - if none of them are valid, none of them describe reality, so the model can never be a model of the real universe. His assertion is that all frames are not only equally valid, but valid.

Of course you're changing two measurements, and the consequence is that you have events unhappen every time you change frame, which should (for any rational person) show you that SR is playing a trick that can't match up to the real universe.

You must conclude that I am unreasonable while I conclude that you do not understand your fractal environment based on everyone in the present.

You are being irrational - the universe cannot unhappen events and rehappen them willy nilly as it changes frame (for no good reason) in the course of coordinating the unfolding of events. However, if your "fractal" approach is supposed to be a solution, it looks as if it's heading in the direction of the block universe, and that breaks as much as it fixes.

The speed of light relative to objects is not always c and can be measured as not being c.

Only if your doing the measurement wrong.

If light is travelling the length of a train moving through the measurement frame and the light and train are moving in the same direction, it takes longer for the light to get from the back of the train to the front, and that can be measured.

Your interpretation of wording causes the unfolding of events. The distance light travels further is the timed speed of light in a frame. You can only measure the speed of light in every frame not the relative speed of light in every frame. The speed of light is constant.

You can measure the speed of light relative to things moving through the measurement frame, and the values you get are not c. By changing the synchronisation of the clocks on the desk and changing the rate at which they tick, you can make measurements for the speed of light along the desk for as many frames as you like, and if one of those values is true, all the others are necessarily false. If you accept them all as being true, you end up with a model where contradictions are tolerated and events can unhappen at the drop of a cat.

[GoC (OP)]

If light is travelling the length of a train moving through the measurement frame and the light and train are moving in the same direction, it takes longer for the light to get from the back of the train to the front, and that can be measured.

This is my major disagreement with your position. You cannot take the measurements from one frame place them in another frame and be accurate. That will give you two different values. Your measurements are only valid for your frame. You are tricking yourself if you believe math can make things un-happen.

Google supplies links to a variety of respectable sources which all agree with the postulate I provided. Do you want it in German instead, perhaps?

I want it in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR.

Or perhaps you could supply the postulates yourself, since you appear to disagree with everyone else as to what they are.

No only Einstein's wording makes sense with Relativity. All frames are valid from that frames perspective using simultaneity of relativity.

...but is not itself a frame of reference

A constant can be used as a frame of reference to a point even if we cannot measure it properly. All measurements are indirect.

It doesn't matter - I'm getting a Frame B measurement of the speed of light across an object relative to that object where that object is at rest in Frame A. This is just the same as using a Frame A measurement of the speed of light across an object moving through Frame A - it produces a speed of light relative to that object which is not equal to c.

You cannot use your measurements in another frame and claim it to be valid. Your measurements are only valid for the frame you occupy. Measurements are visually fractal but physically constant in the present. You do not observe an object where it is in space with velocity of that object.

There really is no difference between Let and SR. One recognizes a framework (Let) and no opinion on a framework (SR). Neither describe a framework's mechanics. In Einstein's 1920 paper he recognized the need for a framework

[jeffreyH]

What do the experts say?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/

[guest39538]

What do the experts say?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/

I think I already solved this one Jeffrey...

[GoC (OP)]

Yes the speed of light is constant in any direction. But light can chase an object like NY from SF or  move towards a collision as in NY to SF. That is just a change in distance and not the speed of light.

[guest39538]

That is just a change in distance and not the speed of light.

yup

[guest4091]

David Cooper #437

So MMX was solved using time dilation and length contraction, and no different than the SR explanation.

following MMX in 'Magic Schoolbook':

Clocks are slowed by movement, but importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all: you can see that this must be the case because the light is still travelling through the fabric of space at its full normal speed. (Einstein's theory makes very different claims about all this,

NO, he doesn't, your interpretations do.

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."  (1905 paper)

In the paragraph 'enter uncle albert' in 'Magic Schoolbook':
you say it's not possible to identify an absolute frame, so why even consider it. When scientists today conduct isolated experiments, they don't concern themselves with the location of stars or planets, since those objects have no significant effect on what they are doing.
The ether was shelved in the 1930's after more refined experiments could not detect any effect on the motion of the earth.

You misrepresent SR and it's author. He did not consider different descriptions by observers in different locations as contradictions. Why then form the Lorentz coordinate transformations between frames?  You are already aware of the mathematical 4d version by Minkowski, not Einstein.  The block universe had not been conceptualized in 1905!
Length contraction for Einstein resulted from a measuring method via the simultaneity convention so it wasn't physical.

The round trip transit time for light emitted from the local frame was defined to be equal in both directions, since there is no way to determine an absolute speed for the moving observer. An observer watching a frame go by would see the difference in outbound vs inbound local time in the x direction.

You can assume an absolute frame U to form your math expressions for A and B relative to U, then eliminate U and form math expressions for A and B relative to each other. I.e. no need for U.

A misinterpretation of the spacetime diagram.

Everything in a Spacetime diagram has to move up the diagram over time even if it is stationary in space, but objects which are moving rapidly through space will have to move upwards more rapidly than slower objects if they are taking shortcuts into the future. In mode 1 we have a 1:1 tick-to-tick ratio for clocks on all paths, and this allows you...

A spacetime drawing may be considered as a sequence of still frames overlaid in the order of occurrence, an object at each instance of time. The information is the same as in a movie, slide show, or simulation, but presented simultaneously.
Refer to drawing below.
Speed is the ratio of the x interval/ct interval. The times are hyperbolic (green curves), similar to isobars, and not 1:1. Light profiles are always inclined at 45 deg, and object speeds are inclined between o and 45 deg.  Objects don't move in time, and if they did move faster vertically as you suggest, they would actually be moving slower! Typically the time lines for moving objects are labeled with wider spaced tick marks. The hyperbolic time is not a product of SR as commonly thought, but the reality of 2 and 3 dimensional space. Moving objects in general will move past an object with an offset, thus the distance varies in hyperbolic form, and light transit time varies accordingly. Only light on a collision course with the observers forehead moves in linear time.





https://app.box.com/s/s3w4nk5j0m6c3ti4o8s0w8iucq4qv0m8

[David Cooper]

What do the experts say?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/

Experts? You must be joking!

"In the 1960s and 70s, various physicists looked for a directional dependence by placing a gamma ray emitter at the edge of a rotating disc and an absorber at the centre. They then looked for any difference in the rate of absorption as the disc rotates but found none." [Note that there are two versions of this experiment, the other placing the emitter at the centre and the detector at the edge.]

Why are they still pedalling that debunked idiocy? Either they're really shoddy thinkers or they're deliberately pumping out propaganda which they know full well to be false. They completely failed to take Doppler shift into account - had they bothered to do their analysis thoroughly they would have worked out that no change should be detected regardless of how fast the apparatus is moving through space.

The idea behind the experiment is that if the centre of the turntable is stationary, once the disk reaches its target rotation speed, the movement of the emitter will slow the frequency of the emitted radiation until the detector starts to detect it, the detector being tuned to a very specific frequency and being incapable of detecting the signal if it's even slightly out, and the emitter emitting a very specific frequency of gamma ray with no variation. The emitter is moving at a constant speed and the detector is stationary.

What happens if you move the apparatus at high speed through space? The emitter now speeds up and slows down relative to the fabric of space, but the detector moves along at a constant rate, so it seemed obvious to these naive "experts" that the frequency arriving at the centre must now vary, leading to the detector failing to detect the signal most of the time, only receiving the odd blip on occasions when the emitter emitted a gamma ray at a time when it was moving at the right speed through space for the frequency to be right. Open-and-shut case, they thought, so they published their null result and proclaimed that they had proved LET wrong, and their proclamations remain out there all over the place without the retraction being attached to it, just as happened with MMX and a host of other experiments which failed to live up to the claims that were initially made of them.

With the apparatus moving through space, the functionality of the detector is slowed, tuning it to a lower frequency than when it was at rest. The emitter was already moving before, but it is now moving faster through space on average than before, thereby slowing its functionality too and tuning the gamma rays that it produces to a lower frequency. But, sometimes it's moving more quickly through space than average, and sometimes less quickly than average, so it produces gamma rays of different frequencies. If the experiment was done with the apparatus at rest, there would be no Doppler shift changes because each crest and trough of the wave is produced at exactly the same distance away from the detector. If the apparatus is moving through space, that breaks down. If we look at the case where the emitter is moving forwards fastest, it is putting out gamma rays of lower frequency, but each crest or trough is produced further ahead of the detector, meaning that later crests and troughs have less distance to travel through space to reach the moving detector, with the result that the ray is blue-shifted. In the opposite case where the emitter is moving most slowly, it's putting out gamma rays of a higher frequency, but each crest or trough has further to go to meet the detector than the one before it, and this red-shifts the signal. These Doppler shifts (and the relativistic effects on the shape of the rotating disc) ensure that the received signals do not vary in frequency at all.

To go through all the maths of it could be done in complex ways, but fortunately there's a way to simplify things to make it absolutely clear to anyone of normal intelligence that the received signals can't vary, and that's to provide co-moving emitters on tangents to the disc which will produce gamma rays of the same frequency as the co-moving emitter on the edge of the disc. We thereby remove the complexities of the rotation and make the reality brutally stark. We now have simple movement of the emitter relative to the detector equivalent to all the bog-standard cases of two spaceships passing each other, and no matter which of the tangents we move our emitter along, it will be moving at the exact same speed relative to the emitter if you measure it from the frame of reference in which the detector is stationary. There is no possibility of the perceived frequency changing, and the fact that the people behind the experiment didn't work that out before building the thing and didn't even work it out before publishing their results and making ignorant claims about it says a lot about their actual status as experts. Worse though by far is the fact that people are still pushing this stuff and making the same debunked claims about it. It's shocking that this goes on, but it does, and that's why I'm absolutely justified in calling the establishment a mafia because they allow all this to happen even though they know damned well that it's been debunked.

There is no experiment that can determine the one-way speed of light. Every single experiment that has ever had the claim made of it has been debunked.

[jeffreyH]

What do the experts say?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421603/the-one-way-speed-of-light-conundrum/

I think I already solved this one Jeffrey...

The pdf has examples of the use of linear algebra to transform between frames. It is always useful to have worked examples.

[jeffreyH]

They are reviewing past experiments. Read the PDF.

[David Cooper]

If light is travelling the length of a train moving through the measurement frame and the light and train are moving in the same direction, it takes longer for the light to get from the back of the train to the front, and that can be measured.

This is my major disagreement with your position. You cannot take the measurements from one frame place them in another frame and be accurate. That will give you two different values. Your measurements are only valid for your frame. You are tricking yourself if you believe math can make things un-happen.

Go to my interactive Spacetime diagram, select mode 2, run it till the counter says 360, then change between frames A and B and watch events happen and unhappen. That's what your model does whenever you change frame, and it shows that the accounts generated by different frames are incompatible. If the accounts from one frame is true, the accounts from all the others are false.

You have just agreed that the measurements from different frames are incompatible, so why can't you complete the logic and recognise that the accounts are incompatible. One frame asserts that it takes 10ns for light to travel along the desk. Another frame asserts that it takes 74ns. Another frame asserts that it takes a fraction more than 5ns. Another frame asserts that it takes a billion years. At most, only one of those accounts can be true. But, if all accounts are held to be true, light is simultaneously passing the desk at all possible speeds between 0 and 2c. If you want to claim that these units of time are different for different frames and that they're all really the same speed, then which speed is the true one? All of them? No. One and only one of them. If you theorise that it's a specific speed in a specific frame, you are theorising specific compatible speeds for each frame, so if it's 10ns/dl for one frame, it will be 74ns/dl for one of the frames moving at 87%c relative to the first frame. This produces a theory that the desk is at rest in an absolute frame, and it may or may not be true, but if it is true, any account that predicts a speed other than 10ns/dl for the desk's rest frame is necessarily false.

I want it in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR.

Why don't you post it then so that we can see how wrong Google, Wikipedia, etc. are. If it's significantly different, you should be only too keen to show it.

You cannot use your measurements in another frame and claim it to be valid.

Well, you're making my case - the accounts generated by different frames asserted to be at rest are incompatible and cannot all be true.

There really is no difference between Let and SR. One recognizes a framework (Let) and no opinion on a framework (SR). Neither describe a framework's mechanics. In Einstein's 1920 paper he recognized the need for a framework

One proposes an absolute frame and the other bans one. Mechanistically, an absolute frame is essential, so SR is not modelling the real universe.

[David Cooper]

They are reviewing past experiments. Read the PDF.

Where's the PDF?

Edit: found it in the small print. Where in there is there an experiment that hasn't been debunked?

[jeffreyH]

They are reviewing past experiments. Read the PDF.

Where's the PDF?

Edit: found it in the small print. Where in there is there an experiment that hasn't been debunked?

I didn't say anything about the veracity of the information.

[David Cooper]

So MMX was solved using time dilation and length contraction, and no different than the SR explanation.

It uses an absolute-frame mechanism.

Clocks are slowed by movement, but importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all: you can see that this must be the case because the light is still travelling through the fabric of space at its full normal speed. (Einstein's theory makes very different claims about all this,

NO, he doesn't, your interpretations do.

LET says that clocks are running slow and that time is not. Einstein says that the clocks aren't running slow because they're ticking at their normal rate and taking shorter paths into the future. It's easy for you to argue that he made some other claim though, because he has more than one model that he switches between as and when it suits him - sometimes it's model zero, sometimes model 2 and sometimes it's LET. Early on he mainly focused on model 2, but later on he went more for model zero (the eternal static block universe), but he continued to mix incompatible models up in his pronouncements, and so do his many followers today. If I was to spell out the complications of his schizophrenic position on SR at every point on my page, it would be at least ten times the length without providing any additional information of any value.

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."  (1905 paper)

That could equally well be LET, but a lot is left to interpretation. His subsequent pronouncements clearly rule out any possible acceptance of LET on his part.

you say it's not possible to identify an absolute frame, so why even consider it. When scientists today conduct isolated experiments, they don't concern themselves with the location of stars or planets, since those objects have no significant effect on what they are doing.

If they don't care about mechanism and creating a model that can actually represent the real universe, they should stop claiming that they're right about how the real universe works.

The ether was shelved in the 1930's after more refined experiments could not detect any effect on the motion of the earth.

Refined experiments which are incapable of detecting something which they aren't testing for are merely a catalogue of failed thinking. If you try to measure the hardness of a rock by roasting a duck, you aren't going to get a relevant answer.

You misrepresent SR and it's author.

He misrepresents himself by changing position.

He did not consider different descriptions by observers in different locations as contradictions. Why then form the Lorentz coordinate transformations between frames?

I don't know if you're referring to something specific that I said somewhere, but the transformations are used to change the speed of light across objects and thereby generate different theories as to what the reality of a situation might be, and the different theories are incompatible.

You are already aware of the mathematical 4d version by Minkowski, not Einstein.  The block universe had not been conceptualized in 1905!

If SR was being presented today as LET with an acceptance that there's an absolute frame instead of a denial of its existence, there wouldn't be anything for us to argue about. By going back to Einstein's early position on relativity you appear to be distancing yourself from SR as it is pushed today, and that's a very good thing. All you have to do now is accept that LET is correct, that it's wrong to deny the existence of an absolute frame, and that the one-way speed of light across an object is not always c relative to it. You are still trying to have your cake and eat it though.

Length contraction for Einstein resulted from a measuring method via the simultaneity convention so it wasn't physical.

SR predicts that you can fit more objects of a given rest length round the edge of a circle if you move them round the circle at relativistic speed. That is a physical length-contraction unless you use 4D Spacetime and hide some of the length in the time dimension. Once you start doing that, the wording you use to describe what you're talking about becomes ambiguous, so it's more useful to spell out which specific model you're using at the time and describe the where and the what of an object without opening the door to misinterpretation. There are people about who don't believe in the 4D model but who still don't think the length-contraction is physical, and their belief is therefore in something impossible. That's what happens though when the experts keep mixing models and leading people to think that what they say of one applies to them all. Every claim needs to be framed with greater precision by naming the specific model. Einstein appears to switch between a 3D SR variant of model 2 (like LET but tolerating contradictions), 4D model 2 (Minkowski's version of model 2), and model 0 (eternal block). Any claim not pinned to a specific model is ambiguous.

You can assume an absolute frame U to form your math expressions for A and B relative to U, then eliminate U and form math expressions for A and B relative to each other. I.e. no need for U.

The universe has to use a frame for running its coordination of events. If that frame isn't A or B, it can't just throw away U and use only A and B unless it changes the frame it's using to A or B, and in the course of making that change it will have to undo a lot of events that have already happened. Now that it's done that and is using A as its event-coordination frame, what happens when you want to consider B and C? The universe has to switch from using A to B or C and again make lots of events unhappen. It's a ridiculous model if you expect the universe to run the same mechanism. We have an army of experts who simply don't get it because they refuse to think it through. They don't have a rational mechanism for the model to run on. The few that have had to produce a working model have all used a preferred frame, and if they ever decide to switch frame to try to do prove they're doing SR, they immediately make events unhappen, thereby demonstrating that they are no longer modelling the real universe.

A spacetime drawing may be considered as a sequence of still frames overlaid in the order of occurrence, an object at each instance of time. The information is the same as in a movie, slide show, or simulation, but presented simultaneously.

And the unfolding of events is different depending on which frame you use as your base. Switching frames reveals that by showing events unhappening.

Speed is the ratio of the x interval/ct interval. The times are hyperbolic (green curves), similar to isobars, and not 1:1. Light profiles are always inclined at 45 deg, and object speeds are inclined between o and 45 deg.  Objects don't move in time, and if they did move faster vertically as you suggest, they would actually be moving slower! Typically the time lines for moving objects are labeled with wider spaced tick marks. The hyperbolic time is not a product of SR as commonly thought, but the reality of 2 and 3 dimensional space. Moving objects in general will move past an object with an offset, thus the distance varies in hyperbolic form, and light transit time varies accordingly. Only light on a collision course with the observers forehead moves in linear time.

Mode 1 illustrates what happens if you try to run events by the dogma that clocks don't run slow, and that model only has to potential to describe the real universe if it's a block universe with objects leaving a solidified trace of themselves at every past point they've been through. If JavaScript allowed me to show the path history of each object instead of merely moving the dots up the screen without leaving a line behind them, I would have programmed it to do that (and to allow those lines to change shape as the frame is changed), but every dot that I use slows the processing and it would soon grind to a halt if I tried to show the history of each object's progress up the screen. You are therefore left to imagine those lines being drawn. What mode 1 shows is the unfolding of events with 1:1 tick rates for all paths, and it's correct. The objects moving fastest up the screen are the ones moving fastest through space, and light, if I showed it, would move up the diagram infinitely quickly (which means it can't be shown). The reason you're failing to understand how mode 1 works is that you're stuck with a mode 2 mentality, applying a preferred frame to coordinate the unfolding of events so that the leading edge of that unfolding is a straight and horizontal line.

[jeffreyH]

You certainly seem to have a bee in you bonnet about me David when I am not actually arguing against you. Hmmm ...

[David Cooper]

I didn't say anything about the veracity of the information.

I thought you'd maybe found something, but here's the part relating to the debunked experiment:-

"After the invention of masers, lasers and of the Mössabauer effect in around 1960, the one-way
experiments became technically feasible. The Mössabauer effect: recoilless emission and
absorption of gamma rays, has involvement with nuclear and electromagnetic interactions as
well as the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, and is potentially a very powerful tool for
one-way isotropy tests. The Mössabauer-rotor experiment is subject to relativistic time dilation
where the dilatation factor can be deduced from the modified Doppler shift formula. One-way
isotropy tests using Mössabauer-rotor experiments were performed by different observers in the
1960s [71 - 73]. A disk with a γ-ray emitter on the rim and an absorber at the centre where a
detector was placed just behind the absorber was rotated. Observation of the directional
dependence of the γ-rays transition through the absorber was monitored by the detector."

No mention of it being debunked - it simply gives the impression that it still stands. It then goes on to mention a variety of other experiments, some of which I haven't heard of and will look into when I have the time, but the rest have certainly been debunked.

[David Cooper]

You certainly seem to have a bee in you bonnet about me David when I am not actually arguing against you. Hmmm ...

Fear not - I'm not attacking you, Jeffrey, but their propaganda. How can they possibly not know that that experiment's been debunked? It's interesting though that they mention Doppler shifts there, so they ought to have worked out that a null-result is inevitable, unless they also failed to take into account the relativistic effects on a rotating disc, but that wouldn't create an error without an impossibly high rate of rotation. The idea of using co-moving emitters on tangents (to the curved path through space that the disc's emitter is following - not to the disc as I stated previously) clearly shows that they cannot possibly get anything other than a null result.