[Bored chemist]

Am I the only one, who is able to notice an obvious inconsitency between your words and your actions...?

From the man who didn't spot that he had posted a double negative, even after it was pointed out.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

For example in your model the following would be true:

.90c + .09c = .99c
.90c + .10c = 1.0c
.90c + .11c = 1.0c

That is not mathematically consistent.  Additionally, the first 2 equations do not match observations in the real world

Sorry, but can you provide somekind of practical explanation? What exactly is being represented by those equations? I'm not able to follow your thoughts here...

You have never adequately addressed my scenario.  You seem to be avoiding the scenario, so maybe this will help me to understand your model better.  Which of the following is true in your model,

1.  The moving space ship the sends out a light pulse that they measure as a speed of c.  After 1 second the light has moved 1 light-second.
2.  The moving space ship the sends out a light pulse that they measure as a speed of c.  After 1 second the light has moved .5 light-seconds.

If by "they" you've ment that moving space ship, then of course my answer is: 1.
I'm still not sure, if I unserstand you correctly, so I'll try to write down this answer with my own words:

1. Moving space ship emits a light pulse and measures that it (light pulse) moves at the constant speed of c. After 1 second that pulse has moved 1 light-second away from that ship - is this the answer, you've asked me for?

If yes, then why should I even consider to choose option 2, where light emited by that space ship moves 5 light-seconds in 1 second? Why this light pulse is moving there with the speed of 5c?  I don't get it - option 2 is without any doubts completely wrong... I really can't follow your thoughts...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Am I the only one, who is able to notice an obvious inconsitency between your words and your actions...?

From the man who didn't spot that he had posted a double negative, even after it was pointed out.

Sorry for not being a native english speaker - it's really not my fault. I'm trying as hard as I can, to become 100% fluent, but my grammar and vocabulary can be sometimes pretty awful.  I'm sure, that you would be able to learn my native language in couple months and without any efforts, but sadly I'm not as smart as you are.... No ale nie od dzisiaj przecież wiadomo, że ludzie o prawdziwie słowiańskich korzeniach mają wrodzoną odporność na wiedzę i są wyjątkowo trudni do <censored>..

[Mod edit: No vulgarities please]

[Origin]

Sorry, but can you provide somekind of practical explanation? What exactly is being represented by those equations? I'm not able to follow your thoughts here...

I

Sorry for any confusion I caused.  The equations I wrote were to show that with your modified Galilean relativity in most cases velocities are handled by a straight addition, but in other cases (velocities when added would exceed c) they aren't .  In other words:

This is allowed:
100 km/hr + 100 km/hr = 200 km/hr
Or
.9c + .09c = .99c

But this is not allowed:
.9c + .2c = 1.1c

In your idea the addition would work like this:
.9c + .2c = 1.0c

This makes no sense, this is not how addition works.

[Origin]

I'm trying as hard as I can, to become 100% fluent, but my grammar and vocabulary can be sometimes pretty awful.

I think your English is quite good, actually.

Getting back to the scenario.
You said:

Moving space ship emits a light pulse and measures that it (light pulse) moves at the constant speed of c. After 1 second that pulse has moved 1 light-second away from that ship

That means 1 second after the light pulse was emitted the light will have traveled 1.5 light-seconds.  If the light pulse is 1 light-second ahead of the ship AND the ship has traveled .5 light-seconds then the distance the light traveled from the point of origin is 1.5 light-seconds!!  There can be no other correct answer.

[hamdani yusuf]

- because of this, both models will always predict completely different results...

Ok.  So your model is not an accurate representation of physical reality. That's fine if you were trying to write fiction. Otherwise it wouldn't be acceptable.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I'm trying as hard as I can, to become 100% fluent, but my grammar and vocabulary can be sometimes pretty awful.

I think your English is quite good, actually.

Thanks!

Getting back to the scenario.
You said:

Moving space ship emits a light pulse and measures that it (light pulse) moves at the constant speed of c. After 1 second that pulse has moved 1 light-second away from that ship

That means 1 second after the light pulse was emitted the light will have traveled 1.5 light-seconds.  If the light pulse is 1 light-second ahead of the ship AND the ship has traveled .5 light-seconds then the distance the light traveled from the point of origin is 1.5 light-seconds!!  There can be no other correct answer.

Ok, I get it now - I've missed the dot (.) In the 2nd option - it was .5ls and not 5ls - now it makes more sense to me

Now back to the point - you seem to miss the point regarding the exception of constant c. My model uses 2 kinds of velocities:
- velocity of constant c
- velocities defined in relation to constant c (relative velocities).

Constant c is characteristic only for light. It is constant in all inertal frames and it's value doesn't undergo addition or subtraction from any other velocity.

Relative velocities are defined in relation to constant c and undergo subtraction and addition with other relative velocities, but NOT with constant velocity c.

Relative velocity of a moving frame CAN reach or even exceed the constant c . Source of light can be moving at a relative velocity, which is higher than constant c, but it's velicity still doesn't add to the velocity of light which it emits and in it's inerial frame light still propagates at constant c.

Now let's go back to your scenario with the star ship, which is moving at a relative velocity of 0.5c

If the light pulse is 1 light-second ahead of the ship AND the ship has traveled .5 light-seconds then the distance the light traveled from the point of origin is 1.5 light-seconds!!  There can be no other correct answer.

There seems to be a misunderstanding - you forgot to specify the frame of observation. You need to be more specific - talk to me just like you would talk to someone with half of the normal iq level

Here's the correct answer:

- in the inertial frame of star ship light propagates at constant c and 1 second after emission, wavefront is located 1ls ahead of that ship

- in the inertial frame of a stationary observer light propagates at constant c, while the star ship moves with half of constant c (0.5c) - so 1 second after moving star ship emitted a pulse of light, wavefront of that light pulse passed the distance of 1ls, while the star ship passed half of that distance - in result, in the inertial frame of a stationary observer wavefront of the light pulse is only 0,5ls ahead of the moving star ship.

Just please don't ask me now, how it is possible - I've explained this couple times already. Shortly - it IS theoretically and practically possible.

[Origin]

Constant c is characteristic only for light. It is constant in all inertal frames

and it's value [c] doesn't undergo addition or subtraction from any other velocity.

You seriously don't see the logical contradiction here?

At a point in space, let's call it point A, a space ship traveling at .5c sends out a light pulse.

According to your first statement above, from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c.  That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship.  And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second.  So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second.  This is the only logic conclusion.

According to your second statement above the speed of light and the speed of the ship are not added, so the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship after 1 second.

So that is big logical problem!
If the first statement is true then the second statement is false.
If the second statement is true then the first statement is false.
 
I am afraid that you are refusing to see the problems so you won't have admit your idea is flawed.

[Halc]

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)?

This is exactly what Einstein did, incorporating the premise of not even the frame independent constant speed of light, but rather the frame independent measurement of light speed. His theory is entirely empirical, not metaphysical, since it posits only empirical premises, not any metaphysical ones.

These are the only two assumptions: Galilean relativity which simply says that the laws of physics do not vary from one inertial frame to another, and the frame independent constant measurement of light speed.
All of STR can directly be derived from these premises, which means that if your theory maintains constancy of light speed and yet predicts different measurements than does STR, then your predictions are not derived, but are incorrect guesses. They cannot be correct because no further guessing is needed to complete the theory.
Similarly, GTR is predicated on the single additional premise of the equivalence principle.

So if you want to make sense in your posts, describe things in an empirical manner, not in metaphysical terms.  If two objects are moving together at a relative speed of 0.5c, then how are these speeds measured?  I ask because it really matters, and different methods yield different results. There are different way to do it, but keep in mind that measurements can only be performed locally, so you can't talk about 'seeing' where the light pulse is in one second because if you emitted it, then you're not where it is after a second, so you cannot measure it.  Somebody else can, but he has no direct way of knowing when it was emitted without a description of how he determined that. So say how the measurements are done instead of just asserting metaphysical relationships. Einstein went straight into such measurement and demonstrated relativity of simultaneity without ever running actual numbers, deriving any formulas, or consulting a clock. The only tool used was a tape measure. Any yet you seem to deny relativity of simultaneity in direct trivial contradiction with your assertion that light speed is not frame dependent.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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)?

This is exactly what Einstein did, incorporating the premise of not even the frame independent constant speed of light, but rather the frame independent measurement of light speed. His theory is entirely empirical, not metaphysical, since it posits only empirical premises, not any metaphysical ones.

These are the only two assumptions: Galilean relativity which simply says that the laws of physics do not vary from one inertial frame to another, and the frame independent constant measurement of light speed.
All of STR can directly be derived from these premises, which means that if your theory maintains constancy of light speed and yet predicts different measurements than does STR, then your predictions are not derived, but are incorrect guesses. They cannot be correct because no further guessing is needed to complete the theory.
Similarly, GTR is predicated on the single additional premise of the equivalence principle.

So if you want to make sense in your posts, describe things in an empirical manner, not in metaphysical terms.  If two objects are moving together at a relative speed of 0.5c, then how are these speeds measured?  I ask because it really matters, and different methods yield different results. There are different way to do it, but keep in mind that measurements can only be performed locally, so you can't talk about 'seeing' where the light pulse is in one second because if you emitted it, then you're not where it is after a second, so you cannot measure it.  Somebody else can, but he has no direct way of knowing when it was emitted without a description of how he determined that. So say how the measurements are done instead of just asserting metaphysical relationships. Einstein went straight into such measurement and demonstrated relativity of simultaneity without ever running actual numbers, deriving any formulas, or consulting a clock. The only tool used was a tape measure. Any yet you seem to deny relativity of simultaneity in direct trivial contradiction with your assertion that light speed is not frame dependent.

"(...) which means that if your theory maintains constancy of light speed and yet predicts different measurements than does STR, then your predictions are not derived, but are incorrect guesses"

Sorry, but in my humble and non-scientific opinion, someone can't have a more un-sientific approach to a new theory.

And what if my theory can properly explain quatum entanglement? Because SRT can't handle it too wel

[Halc]

Sorry, but in my humble and non-scientific opinion, someone can't have a more un-sientific approach to a new theory.

What can be more scientific than a single premise and a mathematical derivation of all the (unintuitive even) measurements that must be result if the premise is true?  There's not a single assertion in the theory.

And what if my theory can properly explain quatum entanglement? Because SRT can't handle it too wel

It isn't a theory of quantum mechanics, so it is not in conflict with entanglement any more than it is in conflict with the theory of evolution.
But I think you are referring to this statement:

quantum entanglement, which points to absolute simultaneity

Quantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.

or the idea of matter being a probability distribution, what contradicts the deterministic concept of time.

Matter being a probability distribution?  What theory says that?  SR doesn't mention such thing, concluding or denying them. It makes no conclusion of determinism or the lack of it. These are all metaphysical (philosophical, not scientific) concepts and SR only make empirical predictions.
Your posts seem to lack empirical predictions, which is why I urged you to actually describe how the various relationships you assert are expected to be measured.

[Origin]

Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:
On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion

0 =>-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0

Where
0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial frame
v - relative velocity of any other frame
c - constant velocity of light in vacuum

Beat this...

That is basically meaningless.  Are you going to answer my post?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Matter being a probability distribution?  What theory says that?

About that - google: "wave function matter"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module%202/matter_waves.htm

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Quantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.

About that... google: "quantum entanglement and simultaneity":

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258
"Hi Sam,

Operations on an entangled particle do in fact affect the partner particle instantaneously, if you choose to describe things as if events at one particle affect the other one. (As we describe above, that doesn't really capture the strange connection between the events at the entangled particles.) Also as explained above, this does not violate the postulates of relativity, since randomness prevents any information being sent.

Actually, it was proven recently that if entangled partners interacted at any finite speed, then you could send faster-than-light signals. Since this wouldn't be consistent with special relativity, it is a proof that the interaction must be instantaneous ("infinite speed").

Hope that helps,

David Schmid"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/012001/pdf
Basic Theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Possibility of
Passing on Information Faster than the Speed of Light

Abstract. Quantum entanglement is the core of quantum physics, which is a part of theoretical
physics. This theory is once assumed to be the hope of faster-than-light communication. If the
technique is achievable, it would be a great breakthrough in the field of physics. I went through
the development history of quantum entanglement and conclude it, which is the main stuff I
write about in this article, as it involves many differing and sometimes contradictory opinion of
physicists. The main part of my research depends on articles about quantum mechanics. I read
them first and extracted the relevant contents to form a complete timeline of development.
During my exploration, a conclusion of faster-than-light communication is impossible is arose.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/895973/files/0510090.pdf
"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum
Liar Paradox
W.M. Stuckey1
, Michael Silberstein2,3 and Michael Cifone3
Abstract
The Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics
is introduced. RBW is shown to provide a novel statistical interpretation of the
wavefunction that deflates the measurement problem, as well as a geometric account of
quantum entanglement and non-locality that is free of conflict with special relativity and
free of interpretative mystery. We conclude with RBW’s acausal and adynamical
resolution of the so-called “quantum liar paradox,” an experimental set-up alleged to be
problematic for a spacetime conception of reality. "

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02494313/document
Absolute Space-Time and Measurement

"Abstract
The concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definite
meaning in quantum mechanics. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing an absolute notion of space-time. We also propose to illustrate that when no measurement is conducted on a quantum system its wave function lives as a wave in the absolute space-time but, when a measurement is to be conducted, we must switch to an ordinary observable frame of reference where the quantum system lives as a particle"


https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/04/passage-of-time-relativity-physics/609841/
What Einstein May Have Gotten Wrong
The Swiss physicist Nicolas Gisin is using an old form of math to rethink the very basics of what we know about time.



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/more-evidence-support-quantum-theory-s-spooky-action-distance

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/einstein-relativity-and-absolute-simultaneity/

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332005000200018

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yskim/yspapers/aipproc2006.pdf

jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jafpos/26/0/26_1/

https://cs.paperswithcode.com/paper/entangled-simultaneity-versus-classical

I'm still looking for more...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Wouldn't you know - I actually found a paper, which apeears to be in some 90% consistent with my theory:

https://inspirehep.net/files/400680d382d08f46fc0026b7aada25a6

The Doppler Efect and the Anisotropy of the Speed of Light
Michał Drągowski1  · Marta Włodarczyk1
Received: 3 October 2019 / Accepted: 25 February 2020 / Published online: 4 April 2020
© The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
Fundamental incompatibility arises at the interface of quantum mechanics and the
special theory of relativity with Einstein synchronization, in which simultaneity is
not absolute. It has, however, been shown that a relativistic theory preserving absolute simultaneity allows to formulate Lorentz-covariant quantum theory, at a price
of introducing a preferred frame of reference manifesting itself in a directional anisotropy of the speed of light. We show that a supposed method of distinguishing
between these two theories based on the Doppler efect is insensitive to this anisotropy. Both theories are indistinguishable if only kinematic efects for light or subluminal signals are considered.

It was published on 10.2020 by scientists from my country (Poland) - they probably saw some of my movies

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:
On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion

0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0

Where
0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial frame
v1,v2 - relative velocities of all frames, excepth the frame of a photon
c - constant velocity of light in vacuum

Beat this...

That is basically meaningless.

not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:

0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0

[Kryptid]

Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:
On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion

0 =<-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0

Where
0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial frame
v - relative velocity of any other frame
c - constant velocity of light in vacuum

Beat this...

That is basically meaningless.

not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:

0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0

Okay, so what does <---------> mean in mathematics?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok - I give youthe Ultimate Theory Of Physics:
On The Constant Velocity of light In Relative Motion

0 =<-------->= v =<--------> c <-------->= v =<-------->= 0

Where
0 - velocity of a stationary observer in his own respective inertial frame
v - relative velocity of any other frame
c - constant velocity of light in vacuum

Beat this...

That is basically meaningless.

not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:

0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0

Okay, so what does <---------> mean in mathematics?

Sorry - it supposed to mean "all values in range", but I'm not sure, what is the proper mathmatical form . Let me try once more...

0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0

Better? Help please!

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

It woud be even better, if relative velocities would be noted as directional vectors of motion - but I'm not sure, how to do it properly. Let me try...

0 =<{→}>= v1 =<{→}> c <{←}>= v2 =<{←}>= 0

is this the right form?

[Origin]

not true - and you don't need exceptionally high iq, to understand the meaning of this:

0 =<-------->= v1 =<--------> c <-------->= v2 =<-------->= 0

Sorry - it supposed to mean "all values in range", but I'm not sure, what is the proper mathmatical form . Let me try once more...

0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0

Better? Help please!

Here is a suggestion, don't insult your readers and then ask them for help.

Are you going to respond to post #47?