[Origin]

Well, I give up.  Your intellectual dishonesty makes it hopeless.  Enjoy your fantasy.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Well, I give up.  Your intellectual dishonesty makes it hopeless.  Enjoy your fantasy.

Thanks!

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Hello again! It took me some time, but I'm back - and some of you probably won't be too happy becaus of it
I've spent some part of this time by researching a variation of the scenario, which was discussed here before - the one with a spaceship moving at 0,5 c from a stationary source of light (laser) towards a stationary receiver 4ly away. Below is a diagram for this scenario:

I figured out, that this scenario will get MUCH more interesting, if I'll make the spaceship to move in opposite direction - that means from the stationary receiver and towards the stationary source of light. Below is a diagram for such scenario:

As you might notice, I've added as well a second spaceship (red worldlines), that moves in the same direction and with the same speed, as the other one (0,5c) and at t=0 is located right next to the light source. It will be useful to me later, so let's leave it as for now.

For now let's focus on the main reason, which makes this scenario such interesting. You see, it's one of the rare instances, where SRT predicts things that seem to make more logical sense, that things predicted by my own model of relativity.  Let's start by comparing the frame of the spaceship, as it is predicted by SRT and the classic Galilean model of relative motion:

Galilean relativity:


SRT:

If you're smart enough, you should be able to guess, what I mean - but if you're not, then allow me to explain it with diagrams, which were made using my model of constant c in relative motion:

For those, who don't know what those diagrams mean - in the difference to SRT, where light is reaching the spaceship before it gets to the receiver at t=4, my model predicts that light will reach the spaceship and the receiver at t=4 SIMULTANEOUSLY (since in the moment of emission at t=0, both objects are located 4ly away from the source).

It won't be a big issue, if the light reaching the receiver will pass next to the spaceship without interactng with it. But what if the light WILL interact with the spaceship before it will reach the receiver? Let's say for example, that there's a polarization filter mounted on the spaceship and light emitted by the source at t=0 will pass through it, before it gets to the receiver.

In such case results predicted by SRT seem to be logical - polarized light will reach the receiver at t=4 (in the frame of source/receiver) and become polarized somewhere on it's way (around t=2,7 in the frame of source/receiver and around t=2,2 in the frame of spaceship):

However according to my model non-polarized light will reach the filter at t=4, become polarized and reach the receiver at t=6 (since at t=4 spaceship is located 2ly away from the receiver):

And because the polarized light is here reaching the receiver with 2 years of delay in comparisment to non-polarized light, my model seems to predict an effect, which has all the characteristics of LIGHT REFRACTION - only not due to different densities of mediums (like the "normal" refraction of light), but due to relative motion of objects between the source and the receiver.

And things will get even crazier for objects moving in opposite direction (towards the receiver). Let's say for example, that in the moment of emission at t=0, spaceship is placed 2ly away from the source and moves at 0,5c towards the receiver. This is what my model predicts in such case:

According to my model, light will reach the spaceship (polarization filter) at t=2 and get to the receiver at t=3 - so 1 year earlier than the non-polarized light. I'm well aware that in this case my model of constant c in relative motion predicts things, that seem to contradict our current understanding of light behavior, but I'm trying to be scientifically honest with you and myself, so I won't try to lie, that it doesn't.

However as crazy as it might sound, such idea isn't in fact completely non-sientific and has actually some practical base. Something similar to the light refraction due to relative motion was used in XIX century as a way to explain the STELLAR ABERRATION:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)

Especially similar is the "AETHER DRAG HYPOTHESIS"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

Of course, there's one main difference beteen such hypothesis and my predictions - my model of constant c in relative motion doesn't require the aether and is based mostly on the well known Doppler's effect on light. Using this concept, it can be said, that due to Doppler's effect, space itself is being "squeezed" (contracted) in front of moving object and "stetched" (expanded) behind it - for object moving at 0,5c, units of space become 2 times shorter in front and 1,5 longer behind it - and because of this process, refraction of light due to relative motion takes place. You can see the contraction and expansion of space due to Dopler's shift on the animation below:

But since I've mentioned already about the Doppler's effect on light, I would like to end this subject with something, that will show the advantage of my model over the SRT. I'm sure that most of you heard about the red-shift and the blue-shift of light emitted by a moving source due to Doppler's effect. In shortcut, if the surce of light is moving towards us, wavelenght of light emitted by that source gets shorter in front of it and becomes more blue-ish. If th source is moving away from us, wavelenght of light emitted by it becomes longer, what makes it's color more red-dish.

This is how my model deals with this well known process. Let's say that wave of light emitted by a stationary source has 4 peaks or completes 4 full cycles before it reaches the receiver 4ly away at t=4. If I'll use my model to predict the blue-shift of light observed by the spaceship, which moves at 0,5c towards the source, all we have to do, is to distribute those 4 cycles along the boosted light cone - just like on the diagrams below:

As you can see, wavelenght of light gets shorter for the spaceship, which is moving towards the light source, what shifts the color of that light towards the blue. At the same time, wavelenght of light gets longer for the receiver, which moves away from the spaceship, what shifts the color of that light towards red - just as it suppose to be.

But now let's try to use the SRT to make something similar. I figured 2 ways of making it - below is the first way:

Here 4 cycles are distributed between the source and the receiver, while spaceship observes this light after around 2,7 of those cycles. Problem is that now wavelenght of light emitted by incoming source becomes MUCH longer than for the stationary receiver, what shifts the color of that light towards red - so we end up with something, what is exactly opposite to the process, which we observe in real life...

So maybe I'll try to do the same as in my model and try to "squeeze" those 4 cycles between the source and the incoming spaceship - below is the result:

It seems, that now it is slightly better - but not good enough... Wavelenght seems to be still LONGER for light emitted by the incoming source (or in the best case, the same as for stationary source/receiver), leading to red-shift or "no-shift" of that light instead of blue-shift, which should be observed in this case...

So in the end, results predicted by my model of relativity seem to make much more sense, that it might seem on the first sight - but like always, judge all of this by yourselves...

[Origin]

So in the end, results predicted by my model of relativity seem to make much more sense, that it might seem on the first sight - but like always, judge all of this by yourselves

Unfortunately for you, I and others have demonstrated that your idea is wrong.  I know that doesn't really make any difference to you, it is more fun to keep pretending you have a valid idea...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

So in the end, results predicted by my model of relativity seem to make much more sense, that it might seem on the first sight - but like always, judge all of this by yourselves

Unfortunately for you, I and others have demonstrated that your idea is wrong.  I know that doesn't really make any difference to you, it is more fun to keep pretending you have a valid idea...

Unfortunately to me, you demonstrated the inability to understand the difference between "c is constant in all inertial frames" and "c is constant in relation to every observer in it's own rest (inertial) frame"

Come back, when you will be able to comprehend the difference. Bye!

[Origin]

Unfortunately to me, you demonstrated the inability to understand the difference between "c is constant in all inertial frames" and "c is constant in relation to every observer in it's own rest (inertial) frame"

Sorry, that is false, I clearly showed that your idea gives nonsense results and I showed that your space time diagram violates your own idea!
Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh" is kind of pathetic.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Unfortunately to me, you demonstrated the inability to understand the difference between "c is constant in all inertial frames" and "c is constant in relation to every observer in it's own rest (inertial) frame"

Sorry, that is false, I clearly showed that your idea gives nonsense results and I showed that your space time diagram violates your own idea!
Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh" is kind of pathetic.

Yeah, sure - if this makes you feel better about your own intelect...

But can you please answer me to this simple question: does the diagram below represent the rest frame of the receiver?

Yes or No...

[Halc]

if this makes you feel better about your own intelect...

OP is completely closed to constructive feedback and is resorting to ad-hominem replies in multiple posts.
Topic is locked.  Appeal can be made to the mods to reopen it.