0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Galilean relativity is an approximation of relativity that gives answers that are very close to correct at slow velocities. The higher the velocities the more incorrect the answers become. Galilean transforms clearly state that that the speed of light is not invariant, which is incorrect. Your second chart, the galilean chart, shows a subject moving at .5c and light pulses moving away from the subject at c as viewed from a rest frame. This is in error, according to galilean relativity the light rays should be moving at 1.5c.
"Is There Any Alternative to Special Relativity?"Yes.However, in every single case where SR has been tested, it gives the right answer.So the alternative is being wrong.That's not a thing to brag about on a science page.
This is why I've made couple small modifications that allow the incorporation of constant c in the Galilean model of relativity.
Since it is experimentally proven, that speed of light in vacuum is constant, then why can't we simply keep it constant in all frames (just as I did in my scenario)?
All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.
You didn't make small changes, you 'blew up' Galilean relativity.
Because that is not logical and is inconsistent with Galilean relativity.
Which would make no sense. That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
Really? Then what for example about velocity of sound waves, which remains constant in each type of medium? It's well known, that If source of sound is moving within a stationary medium (e.g. air) it will create the Doppler's effect. I did the same with the waves of light with one difference - I've forced the medium for light propagation to be stationary in all inertial frames, so in the difference to sound, in the rest frame of a light source it won't be possible to observe the Doppler's effect.
Inside a plane, which moves at mach 0,5 sound waves still propagate at mach 1. The main difference is here the fact, that mach has a constant value in air, which can be stationary only in one inertial frame, while c is constant in vacuum, which can be stationary simultaneously in all inertial frames - this is why Doppler's effect is not symmetrical for emission of sound in relative motion and is fully symmetrical for emission of light in relative motion.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 07:53:40Really? Then what for example about velocity of sound waves, which remains constant in each type of medium? It's well known, that If source of sound is moving within a stationary medium (e.g. air) it will create the Doppler's effect. I did the same with the waves of light with one difference - I've forced the medium for light propagation to be stationary in all inertial frames, so in the difference to sound, in the rest frame of a light source it won't be possible to observe the Doppler's effect.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 07:53:40Inside a plane, which moves at mach 0,5 sound waves still propagate at mach 1. The main difference is here the fact, that mach has a constant value in air, which can be stationary only in one inertial frame, while c is constant in vacuum, which can be stationary simultaneously in all inertial frames - this is why Doppler's effect is not symmetrical for emission of sound in relative motion and is fully symmetrical for emission of light in relative motion.First of all I think your graphics look very good!Since the speed of sound I measure depends on my relative motion to the source, it is definitely not an apples to apples comparison.-------I still maintain that using your modified Galilean relativity results in unrealistic situations. As I stated earlier:That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.Another problem arises because a space ship traveling at .5c could fire a missile at .6c and an observer that was in a rest frame would see the missile moving at 1.1c.How does your modified Galilean relativity address those concerns?
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 02:42:32All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.Which would make no sense. That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.
First of all I think your graphics look very good!
OK, so relativity is a difficult concept to grasp. It requires effort. Why not put in the effort?You obviously don't understand it. There are some very good textbooks around that explain special relativity. If you did learn to understand it you would be in a position to ask interesting and relevant questions about it.If that is not what you are interested in doing then you are trolling. If that's the case then maybe you don't belong on a science forum.This forum welcomes members that other forums would simply throw out. Please try to appreciate that.
Ok, I admit that I should probably go back to Origin's comment - especially to this part:Quote from: Origin on Today at 05:54:08Quote from: CrazyScientist on Today at 02:42:32All what has to be done, is to treat the constant c as an exceptional velocity that doesn't undergo velocity addition.Which would make no sense. That would mean a if a space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.There are couple significant consequences of treating c as an exceptional velocity, which remains constant in every inertial frame that probably require some further explanation. I think that the part, which I should focus on, is the apparent inconsistency between constant c and the standard formula of velocity addition...I could possibly summarize the most important differences between the relative speed of mach (velocity of sound in lower atmosphere) and the absolute speed of warp (velocity of light in a vacuum) by stating that it is possible for a source of sound to outrun the sound waves emitted by it in it's own inertial frame, while in the case of light, waves will always propagate at the same constant speed of c in the inertial frame of their source, no matter how much it will try to catch up or outrun them. However somekind of a practical scenario should give you much better outlook on this subject.Let's say, that we have 4 different frames:A - a space station, which remains completely stationary (doom star)B - a star destroyer, which is moving at v=0,5c in relation to A and is capable of launching tie fightersC - a tie fighter launched from B at v=0,5c, equipped with a plasma turret loaded with a high energy projectileD - a high energy projectile, ejected from C at v=0,5cIf I would now treat the speed of light (warp) in the same way as we treat the speed of sound (mach), this is what would be observed onboard the stationary doom star (A):- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A with the speed of 0,5c launches a tie fighter C- relative velocity of C is being added to relative velocity of B (0,5c+0,5c=1c)- tie fighter C, which is now moving at velocity 1c in relation to stationary doom star A shoots a high energy projectile D at 0,5c- relative velocity of C is once again added to relative velocity of D (1c+0,5c=1,5c)- high energy projectile D is now moving at 1,5c in relation to stationary doom star A.If the constant c is being treated as an exceptional velocity, which is always the same in all directions for all inertial frames and doesn't undergo standard velocity addition, since it makes a constant limit for any other velocity in relative motion, this is what will be observed in the stationary frame of doom star A:- star destroyer B, which moves in relation to A at half of the constant speed c, launches a tie fighter C at velocity 0,5c- in the rest frame of B tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the limiting velocity c, but...- in the stationary frame of doom star A, star destroyer B is already in half way to reach the limitng velocity c, while the tie fighter C is being accelerated by half of the remaining speed - and half of 0,5c makes 0,25c - in the frame of stationary doom star A, tie fighter C is now moving 0,25c faster than the star destroyer B which moves at 0,5c in relation to A - so the velocity of tie fighter C in relation to doom star A is equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c- tie fighter C shoots a high energy projectile D with half of of the limiting velocity of constant c, but...- in the frame of star destroyer B, tie fighter C is already moving at half of the limiting velocity c, while high energy projectile D is accelerated by half of the remaining speed (half of 0,5c makes 0,25c) - so in the rest frame of star destroyer B, projectile D is moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c, however...- in the stationary frame of doom star A, tie fighter C was already moving at a relative velocity equal to 0,75c, while it was shooting a high energy projectile D at a velocity, which makes half of the speed that remains for C to reach the constant limit of c (0,25c) - and half of 0,25c makes 0,125c, so in the end...- in relation to tie fighter C high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c- in relation to star destroyer B high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,5c+0,25c=0,75c- in relation to stationary doom star A high energy projectile D is moving at a velocity equal to 0,75c+0,125c=0,875cIf you are smart enough, you should be able to deduce already that in the case of second solution, you can accelerate the projectile D as much as you want, but there's absolutely no way for it to reach at any point the limiting velocity of constant c in any of those 4 frames...And this is the right moment for you to ask: "But what if B, C or D would start to move in a direction, which is opposite to the projectile, which is already speeding at 0,875c? Shouldn't we add the relative velocities of 2 (or more) frames, if they are moving in opposing directions? If so, then by using the standard formula of velocity addition, it becomes possible for one source of light to move in relation to another light source with velocities that exceed the constant c - isn't that completely against our knowledge regarding the constant nature of c?"Yes - that's a very good question (sadly as for now I'm the only one, who is asking it ). But the answer is in this case probably much less intriguing... Sorry to dissapoint you, but physical reality won't break apart or collapse back into a singularity due to backward causality in reversed timeline. Even if it might appear, that order of events is actually reversed for frames that are moving at relative velocities, which exceed the constant c, time will still flow normally from the past and into future in every inertial frame - no matter, how fast or slow it will move in relation to any other frame... And although my model of constant c in relative motion gives an answer, that might be quite plain and boring, it's still better than the answer provided by SRT, which states that: "no one knows what might happen, since such scenario is absolutely impossible even in the theory"...Anyway below is another of my movies, in which I've tried to explain the influence of ftl motion on the proper order of a timeline:
That seems somewhat confusing and convoluted to me.I would just like to know if this following is an accurate account of what could occur in your modified Galilean relativity:A space ship moving at .5c put out a light pulse, after one second the ship would say the light pulse traveled 1.5 ls. To someone at rest relative to the ship the pulse would have traveled only 1 ls.I think this just a yes or no question.I am not trying to trick or trap you. To put my cards on the table, I think the answer to my question is yes and I also think that it results a a situation that is not physically possible, but this is your idea so I want to know what your answer is.
If a space ship, which is moving at 0,5c in relation to a stationary observer will emit a light pulse, then according to my modified model of Galilean relativity, after one second this pulse will appear to travel 1ls (i guess it's a light-second?) in the inertial frame of that moving ship, just as it will appear to travel 1ls from the point of emission in the inertial frame of a stationary observer
Sorry but that answer confused me. You said the answer is no but then your explanation sounded like yes???Let's see if we can clear this up.You said:Quote from: CrazyScientist on 10/04/2021 19:37:19If a space ship, which is moving at 0,5c in relation to a stationary observer will emit a light pulse, then according to my modified model of Galilean relativity, after one second this pulse will appear to travel 1ls (i guess it's a light-second?) in the inertial frame of that moving ship, just as it will appear to travel 1ls from the point of emission in the inertial frame of a stationary observerSo that means that 1 sec after the light pulse was emitted the ship will have traveled .5 ls and the light wavefront will be 1 ls ahead of the ship for a total distance of 1.5 from the point of origin, correct?Yes, ls is a light-second, I would suggest using units like seconds and light-seconds in your charts.