How to detect and measure the absolute velocity, the motion of two inertial frames, in free space.

Despite the theoretical axiom that detection and measurement of absolute motion is impossible I will show the trivial correction to this kind of silliness. I do not intent=d any unnecessary insults here, but If there were ever a social class of those claiming scientific status from a position of sheer and unadulterated bigotry and bias it is the Special Relativity industry.

Well any way here we go.

The detection of absolute motion, AKA velocity

Remote piloted vehicle velocity probe (RPVVP)
Case 1; Va and Vb in a collision trajectory. First we have two inertial frames, Va and Vb, moving at some relative velocity say, 5000 standard units which to start we will assume is in the opposite direction to each other. By radar signal processing the 5000 unit speed number is verified by navigators on both frames. As the frames move toward each other Va launches a remote piloted velocity vehicle probe (rpvvp), an Aquila, that starts at Vq = Va and by successive accelerations in the dorectoion opposite tot hatassumed asVa, increases its velocity with respect to Va all the while making constant checks on the relative velocity of the Vq and Vb and Va. As Vq increases velocity the Vq – Vb relative velocity decreases until finally Vq = Vb and with Va, lets say the Vq frame had a measured 2000 unit relative velocity with respect to Va.

Therefore, Va – Vb = Va – (-Vb) = 5000 and as Vb = 2000 Va = 5000 – 2000 or 3000 units.

Case 2: Vb moving in the same direction as Va. Here Vq starts as before, but the first acceleration showed that Vq – Vb increasing, therefore the Vq decelerated and continued its motion in the same direction as Va and Vb. Using the same techniques of accelerating or decelerating as the measured relative velocity increased or decreased, the Vq arrives at the velocity Vq = Vb, which we will assume again was 2000 units. As Vq maintains a running relative velocity accounting with Va, we see that Va – Vb = 5000 and therefore Va = 5000 + Vb = 5000 + 2000 = 7000 units.

Introduction to MUMPS (momentum measurement particles) analysis.
Case 1: Va and Vb in relative motion with Va at actual rest, momentum = 0, (which will be determined). Va and Vb are moving in a collision course as shown here:

/----------------------------------/ Va ->

<- \------------------------------------------------\Vb

Our Mumps are small round objects much in the form of golf balls (in fact they are golf balls) as are the flat strip of surface on each inertial frame fabricated wihe same same surface configuration. As Va is actually at rest the observer on Vb will see a single line, as a mump is directed perpendicular to the motion of the two inertial frames: "o" ae the Va mumpstones, “|” Va observer.

/-------o----------------0---------/ Va = 0
o ¯ 0 0
o 0 0
o o 0 0
o o 0 0
o o 0 0
o o 0 0
o o 0
o o 0
ß \<------- -o-------|-----------|-|-|-0---------\Vb <-
Vb observer “|”

Now, as Vb is the only frame moving (left) the mumps directed to Va will move with the inertial frame and inherits the Vb velocity. When the Vb mumps strike the flat surface of Va there will be a friction induced force in the direction of motion of the Vb frame. Likewise, as Va is at rest her mumps will only be deflected from a straight line when striking the moving Vb frame. The Va observer will see her mumps deflected to her right, the readers left. As Vb is moving left he will see his mumps as indicated as he is moving at the same velocity as the mumps the directed at Va. The angles are proportional to the relative momentum differences of the two frames.

Case 2: the same analysis for Vb = 0 and Va moving with all the relative velocity. I will note here that each of the mumps is also a transponder, which makes keeping track of the actual positions of the mumps much easier.

Case 3: Both frames moving toward each other.

The "o" are Va stones moving down (not shown here) and “|” Va observer.

/-------o-| | | |-|-|-| |-0------------/ Va ->
¯ 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
ß \- ------------------------ | | | | | | | | | ---------\<- Vb

The"0' ae Vb stones moving up, the Vb observer “|”
Here if the Va = Vb the reflection angles will all be the same and if the momenta of each is different then the angles will be proportionally larger or smaller. I am leaving the calculation of the angles as a function of momenta and therefore velocity to the reader. Intuitively there must be some kind of analog to Snell’s law in working this out as there are frictional forces to contend with the calibration will best be performed by experiment and testing.

The momentum stone (mump stones) drop technique.
I suggested this in a previous post, but thought it useful to include again here.
Actually this is almost identical to the mumps tests, but is designed for passenger train, Vn experiments. Dropping a mump from a moving train will indicate the motion of either the train or the embankment, Ve, obviously. The special relativity “considerations” of assuming a moving frame at rest with respect to the Ve by ignorant observers will not rescue the theory. Here, as we all know the Ve does not accelerate and the only way there is any relative velocity between Ve and Vn is if Vn accelerated, which it did, and assuming the Vn at rest will not change the physics of the arrangements. The mump will always indicate momentum in the direction of the moving frame, always, and therefore any observer attempting to cheat by asserting his ignorance of motion will be denied the opportunity and instead we will hand him a mump stone to drop from his window.

The observer watching the stone drop in a straight line parallel with a row of vertical rivets on the outside of the train has his attention directed to the ground and seeing the ground pass by is reminded that the stone, while appearing to the untrained and unscientific eye, might think the stones are dropping in a straight line as if Vn were at rest, but now he knows different and he recognizes that the absolute motion of his mumps is a parabola, and he sees the same motion as the stationary observer looking on from the preferred frame of reference Ve.

This observer does not see his stone chipped to the rear in the direction of the “non-moving" ground.

You are still only observing relative motion. You, the stone, ansd the earth could be flying through space at 10,000mph and you'd not realize it.

You are still only observing relative motion. You, the stone, ansd the earth could be flying through space at 10,000mph and you'd not realize it.
In case you missed it the systems discovered who is moving, what direction they are moving and the absolute motion, of each. AS these are space ships let us assume here, that each originated on earth and that the motions are consistent with the acceleration data in each ship where they can calculate their current velocity with respect to Ve = 0.

You just want to make up some imaginary 10,000mph from where? Your imagination?

What you fail to see in the above that which was measured is what SR says cannot be measured,. Your 10,000 mph has nothing to do with the demise of SR. You don't even understand the essence of SR if you missed the obvious.
Adios amigo, vaya condios!

Geiskiesel

You missed my point, how do you know the entire system isn't moving?

Who really gives a shit if the entire system is moving or not? Do you?

It's not abosulte motion then....

What is this "everything is moving" referenced to?

Not sure, because I didn't say 'everything is moving'.

If you do your test on two sets of ships, which had initial velocites before the test, they will get different answers. This is by definition NOT absolute.

For example, in your train example you are using the ground as a reference for absolute velocity. However, there is no reason to use that instead of the train.... and both will have different results.

.. You just want to make up some imaginary 10,000mph from where? Your imagination?
You said, "..decreases until finally Vq = Vb and with Va, lets say the Vq frame had a measured 2000 unit relative velocity with respect to Va." Wherefrom did you make up that 2000? your imagination!? If Vq=Vb then the probe is finally COMOVING with entity B and will show the SAME 5000 velocity relative to entity A. A waste of time bickering w/the likes...

Yes there is reason for setting the Ve = 0, because it is zero and unaccelerated. All other inertial frames on the earth must accelerate before any relative motion is opbserved. Ve is never seen to acccelerate. Therefore, all Vn with respect to Ve > Ve = 0, really!. Subtract ouit mutual velocities of the earth Ve and the Vn (which inherits all Ve motion as all Vn are either at rest with repsect to Ve = 0 , or Vn > Ve = 0 necessarily). Therefore, the measured delta v = of Vm - Vn is really the diffeence in real velocity as both are measured with respect to Ve.

You are going to have to prove that the velocities will be different than when measured when leaving Ve, the home planet.

You aren't responding to the thread, get on it or get off it. I am not going joy riding with you anymore, nor am I going fishing into the "maybe land" of SR.

I measured the absolute velocities of two inertial frames. So prove it wrong or leave it alone.

Geistkiesel

You are taking the Earth as being Ve=0. Besides there not being any basis to choose it as your steady point, it's simply false. As you pointed out yourself the thing is accelerating constantly.

I also said that the measure of anything but straight line motion of Ve is impossible. Try it. The direction indicator of the earth changes by the mind blowing rate of approximately 1.5 x 10^-8 degrees/second. This is not whiplash rates, mind you. You might also take some consideration of when a physical ratio, or result, can be cionsidered effectively zero or infinite, as the case may be and get out of your imaginary tree world of SR.

You just pointed out several reasons why there is not absolute motion... thank you.

When two photons, for example, are emitted simultaneously from the same location, each singularly and both together, defne a unique point in space that is invariant as the motion of light is invariant until acted on by outsuide forces, and the motion of the source, or a frame, does not change that postulate of reality, Therefore, the line traced by a photon, and the point of origin of the photon is an invariant point in space which provides a reference point from which to measure absolute velocity.

You are taking the Earth as being Ve=0. Besides there not being any basis to choose it as your steady point, it's simply false. As you pointed out yourself the thing is accelerating constantly.


I chose it? No I didn't choose it, that's the way it is. All Vn not = Ve must accelerate before any relative motion between the earth frame and the moving inertial frame. The earth did not accelerate. All Vn exhibiting relative motion with respect to the Ve necessary Vn > Ve as all common velocities are subtracted out. Vn will never be at rest with respect to Ve unless Vn = Ve = 0, relativily speaking and physically speaking also.

So you see I didn't choose it. I have made a number of claims that the measure of any but straight-line motion of the Ve, the planet earth is physically impossible. You may think that your calculations tell you the truth about orbits around the sun and hence the curved motion, well may be they do just that. I ain't the one to argue that. I will only repeat that the measure of other than a straight line motion of the planet earth cannot be done, therefore all measurements assuming exact straight-line motion wrt Ve, is entirely justified to borrow a term from SR.

This is the difference between a mathematical model and a physical model. Your mathematics demanding mathematical perfection cannot see the physical reality of the effective motion of the Ve = 0 to uniform straight-line motion as MEASURED, not merely theorized about on a piece of paper with AE's portrait hanging on the wall..

Where is James R in this thread? He is the one saying it is impossible to do what I did in the opening posts which persol keeps ignoring also with excrutiating repetition and avoidance.

Hey MacM, I think I found a James R clone here.

Where is James R in this thread?

I'm not on line all the time, geistkiesel! You seem to be spending a lot of time here, lately, though. I'm just having trouble keeping up with your large output of posts. :)

Geistkiesel, do me a favor and give me your definition of 'absolute motion'.... because it doesn't match science's.

Therefore, the line traced by a photon, and the point of origin of the photon is an invariant point in space which provides a reference point from which to measure absolute velocity.

The source that emitted the photons - how do you know it is stationary IN space? Is there some way of knowing the source is not moving?

yes, the postulate of light that says the motion of light is independent of the motion of the source. The photon trajectory is a straight line until acted upon by an out side force. The source of the photons is merely a point in space, but it is invariant. It may be difficult to determine at times, but thr reaity of the invariance of the photon trajectory is cast in steel. Unless, it seems, it gets in some theorists way and then an exception is always found, such a tragedy, isn't it?

Geistkiesel, do me a favor and give me your definition of 'absolute motion'.... because it doesn't match science's.
I am just using that which was discarded by relativity theory. Assume yiou see the "light" on my velocity = zero device using photons as a referemce frame. This comes form the postuloate of light that the motion of light is idnependent of the motion of the sourcde. Hence a phton will move in a straight klibne untikl acted on by an ioutide force, othe wise is psatially not moving, ther ios nothin to drift or accelerate as it is purely a frame at absolute zero velocity.

I use the earth frame also as absolute for the reason that the motion is faurkly wekk ubdertsii=ood and all poits on thin the volume earth acan be opredicted to any desired accuracy.
OK the earth turns constantly at a whiplash rate of < 10^-8 degrees / sec. All of this adds up to the fact that the earth is imeasurably distinguished from straight-line motion.
You and I may calculate motions and know the annual orbit times and rotations times etc. but we can't measure the tirning and therefore for all physical intents and purposes it isn't turning, We may ignore the turning. If it ever should affect a measurement the rates are suffciiciently slow that corrections can be easily made .

If I time you driving by me stationary on the side of the road, at 200 km/hr that is absolute velocity to me. The earth if infiniitely inertially pure. No conceivable Vn can possibly affect the lumbering straight line motion. All earth velocities of Ve are inherited by all Vn and it is the Vn seen to accelerate that we observe relative motion between Ve anf Vn. Ve is never seen to accelerate.

OK?

I'm not on line all the time, geistkiesel! You seem to be spending a lot of time here, lately, though. I'm just having trouble keeping up with your large output of posts. :)
message received and understood.

but we can't measure the tirning and therefore for all physical intents and purposes it isn't turningBullshit. Have you ever seen a large pendulum?
Assume yiou see the "light" on my velocity = zero device using photons as a referemce frame. As I pointed out, it is incorrect. Remeber that whole thing about how the speed of light is constant for all observers?
If I time you driving by me stationary on the side of the road, at 200 km/hr that is absolute velocity to me. The earth if infiniitely inertially pure. No conceivable Vn can possibly affect the lumbering straight line motion. All earth velocities of Ve are inherited by all Vn and it is the Vn seen to accelerate that we observe relative motion between Ve anf Vn. Ve is never seen to accelerate.LMFAO. I'd like to see you launch a rocket using this logic.

Geistkiesel stating: "but we can't measure the turning and therefore for all physical intents and purposes it isn't turning.
”
Bullshit. Have you ever seen a large pendulum?

Sure I have, Griffiths Park. Now make a measurement and determine the motion of the planet. Make a measurement in your experiment and show the corruption of data by the motion of the planet, where all Vn have inherited the planet's motion. The pendulum, while an interesting example, does not disprove the assertion made. We all know the earth rotates and orbits the sun and the sun orbits whatever, yet no obserbed deviation from straight line motion has beem measured. It is like doesn't deviate from straightline m,otion until operated on by outside forces,

In the meantime the photon trajectory is a prefect axis for a frame of reference.

Launching space craft at the equator in an eastward motion will take advantage of the maximum rotatioonal velocity of the planet at .469 km/sec. This is why the equator is a preferred launch site, beacause the shutttles have inherited the planet's uniform motion.

Not only can the deviation from straightline motion not be measured, the earths curved surface cannot be measured. We live in flat geometry, effectively.



As I pointed out, it is incorrect. Remeber that whole thing about how the speed of light is constant for all observers?
LMFAO. I'd like to see you launch a rocket using this logic.

I remember the SR statement that echoes what you just said, but this is just an assertion without any physical proof offerred. You can remember that whole thing by yourself. I discarded that silliness a long time ago.

What comes next, "the thousands of ecperiments that prove SR" ?

And what logic is it that you find not conducive to the succesful launching of space ships? Specifically, please.

The speed of light is constant, in the universe, for all obvservers, except you must make allowances for the relative velocity of frame and photon. This means that when we say light is traveling faster than the passenger train by an amount, Vc - Vn = Vrel > 0 < C. You look on this statement as heresy because you were duped into believing the moving observerxs will always measure C as the realtive velocity of frame and photon. In oprder to do this you must first assume yourself at rest, when in fact you are moving,with respect to Ve, the embankment.

You consciously and purposively negate a physical parameter, frame velocity, in order to have a SRT. Would you ever negate a moving observers motion when measuring the relative velocity of an automobile with respect to the observer?

At what velocity do you negate the motion of the observer?

If you are just going to throw tired SR mantras at me why bother? Haven't you something better to do? Or is this your job?

Geistkiesel

Not sure, because I didn't say 'everything is moving'.

If you do your test on two sets of ships, which had initial velocites before the test, they will get different answers. This is by definition NOT absolute.

For example, in your train example you are using the ground as a reference for absolute velocity. However, there is no reason to use that instead of the train.... and both will have different results.

You said the entire system is moving? Entire means everything in Arizona, where I'm from. Moving with respect top what by the way? has the mysterious non existent 10000mph component just do a didpsy doodle into the irrelevant statement bin?

After the ball dropping test the Ve is proved the unambiguous preferred frame as the frame that is not moving and which experineced no acclerations giving any recopgnized velocity component to Ve. It isn't a choice by this time it is necessary and it certainly isn't arbitrary?

The ignorance of the observer is such a critical issue in SR that but fore that ignorance there is nothing to talk abbout SR theory wise. WHYich established SR as a mental construct that corrupts rational thinking habits.

Hell you can't even work rationally on hypotheticals without becoming unglued when you assume siome parametr that is prohibited by SFR theory.

What in the hell are you talking about man?
If I drop a golf ball from a moving train and it lands on some grainy, but fairly uniform pavement, and I followed the trajectory of the golfball moving parallel with a line of rivets mounted in a vertical line on the outside of the train until it struck the pavement and witnessed the motion after that, I will see a golfball bounce back up into the original trajectory less a bit due to friction losses. If I were truly stationary, then the ball should receive a little chip shot to the rear of gthe train, due to the motion of the Ve passing by. But the ball had a component of momentum only in the direction of the moving train, hence the train os moving wirth respect to the Ve just like everyone knows.

From the above,and from signals from the observer on Ve that the ball is moving in a parabolic trajectory, that the observer remembered buying her ticket and boarding the train which she then felt as it accelerated from the station, as the accelerometers on board Vn all indicated and as the Ve acclerometers also indicated null readings on all the Ve acclerometers . is consistent only with the results of the ball dropping test, indicating unambiguous motion of the train wrt Ve, with Ve = 0.

The observerf may make one of two conclusions (1). The train and Ve are at rest with respect tio each other (but that little fricitonal loss may prove stubbornly illusive to explain) , but the whizzing observed proves no mutual at rest condition exists, or (2) the train is moving as witnessed by the momentum component of the moving train assumed by the ball when moving with the frame of reference (just like all Vn on the planet earth) and, hence, preventing the Ve from imparting a little specific imnpulse that would take the ball to the rearward direction of the train and clearly away from the observer.

Please explain the justification for assuming a velocity condition that is not only not existing when invoked, but is physically impossible to achieve.

You said, "..decreases until finally Vq = Vb and with Va, lets say the Vq frame had a measured 2000 unit relative velocity with respect to Va." Where from did you make up that 2000? your imagination!? If Vq=Vb then the probe is finally COMOVING with entity B and will show the SAME 5000 velocity relative to entity A. A waste of time bickering w/the likes...

Yes I made up the number. I have the Vb moving in a collision course with the Va, in the first run through. The Vq accerates, moves at constant velocity, makes measurements and accelerateds again. Starting from a Vq = Va the Vq is measuring departure from that Vq = Va until the Vq = Vb velocity. The Vq has been measuring the change in relative velocity with respect to the Va frame since changing the Vq motion.


It isn't perhaps as clear to you as it is to me.
The Vq measure the relative velocity, always changing wrt Va, When Vq reached 2000 units the Vb - Vq relative velocity is zero, OK At some point the velocioty Vq - Vb motion must come to a rest, and it happebned to occur here as the Vq had measured a Va - Vq = 2000. Vq had to subtract 2000 units from the Va motion. The total motion is 5000, known ahead of time,
and both Vq and Vb, as you noticed, are moving at the same speed and direction. In the meantime the Vq has been maintaining the relative velocity Va - Vq.

Is trhis strill a waste of time bickering with the likes of me?

Yes, a total waste. If Vb-Va=5000 km/sec, and if Vq accelerates until Vq-Vb=0 km/sec, then Vq is COMOVING with Vb and Vq-Va will likewise measure 5000 km/sec.

Just forget it! It has been obvious for over 100 years to SUPERIOR physicists that there is no conceivable test that can distinguish absolute motion. YOU sir, are DREAMING! What have YOU been smoking??

Yes, a total waste. If Vb-Va=5000 km/sec, and if Vq accelerates until Vq-Vb=0 km/sec, then Vq is COMOVING with Vb and Vq-Va will likewise measure 5000 km/sec.

Just forget it! It has been obvious for over 100 years to SUPERIOR physicists that there is no conceivable test that can distinguish absolute motion. YOU sir, are DREAMING! What have YOU been smoking??
You missed something vital so chill out man. This isn't the end of your life and if you don't want to read it then dont.

AS Vq is moving in the same direction as Vb, Vq also is mantaining a running account of its Va - Vq. relative velocity. until the end point of the measurements. Va and Vb only know their relative motion of 5000. Now the Vq moves to the rear until the Vq - Vb = 0. Now guess what the Va - Vq relative velocity happens to be? What ever Vq measured at the instant Vq and the Vb velocity were measured equal; Vq did a smart thing he assumed the Va frame at resat and himslef, rather itself, in motion relative to the Va = 0 frame.

Starting from [list]
Va - Vb = 5000.
when Vq = Vb then, Va - Vq = 2000,
which is just the accumulated velocity VVq acquired when accelerating to catch the Vb motion. Vq says to Va: I have been changing my velocity until my velocity is the same as the Vb velocity. But my position is different than that of Vb, because I know what the motion is between us, Va - Vq , where neither you, the Va frame, nor the Vb frame knew. You only knew the relative motion, not the "absolute " motion that I discovered with my measurements.
and since Vq = Vb we substitute in the expression above,
Va - Vb = 5000
Va - 2000 = 5000
and hence Va = 3000.[/list

Talk to me Dristam, about SUPERIOR physicists, who for the past 100 wasted years, wasted time, convinced you and your peers, you could not do what I just did in front of your face. Tell me about your total waste of time, your insults, your implying I had been "SMOKING" and "DREAMING" , a charaterictic SR anathema of yet another dedicated dissident who now is thoroughly chilled to the members of your commuinity, right?

So what are you going to do? Prove yourself a total ass by maintaining your position that the Vq did not always maintain a running account of the relative Va - Vq relative velocity, from the instant the Vq first accelerated, or see the serror for what it is, and get on withj your life? Where is your ego pucker factor red line level in this instance? Hey Dirstam, just talk long and hard, some will hear you, and believe, just because you seem so damned sure of yourself.

Who was it that said that for,

"the enemies of truth, convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies"

Was that Leroy "Satchel" Paige, the most prolific and devastating basebal pitcher in the history of the game that gave us the quote? I think not. Satchel said,

"When you are face to face with an enemy stronger than you, walk him".

From me, you can take your whining, sniffling, SUPERIOR attitude and shove it up your ass.

I'm ALL FOR the sober questioning of authority, especially when decisions are made behind closed doors, or based largely on subjective opinion, prejudice or demagoguery. But this is SCIENCE, and even though Relativity is still classified a theory, NO THEORY has EVER been more thoroughly tested than Relativity!

As for your thread I don't follow it, and for the reasons which I've already made clear. You and I are at an impasse (fini!) unless a third party can interject a translation of your garbled rantings, sir.

I'm ALL FOR the sober questioning of authority, especially when decisions are made behind closed doors, or based largely on subjective opinion, prejudice or demagoguery. But this is SCIENCE, and even though Relativity is still classified a theory, NO THEORY has EVER been more thoroughly tested than Relativity!

As for your thread I don't follow it, and for the reasons which I've already made clear. You and I are at an impasse (fini!) unless a third party can interject a translation of your garbled rantings, sir.

And you still insist on maintaining the error you found regarding the Va, Vb and Vq and the measure of absolute velocity? You fool, Oh, that's right you can't understand, so you capitalize your response as a part of the surrender process. Not very cool Dristam. Well I guessed the right one didn't I? ego challenged was my guess and guess what, I observed this?.

Please explain the justification for assuming a velocity condition that is not only not existing when invoked, but is physically impossible to achieve.First of all, the velocity condition being used most likely DOES exist. In your train case the person does have a V0 relative to the train when sitting in his seat. I want you to calculate the force between the guy in the seat and the train. An intelligent person would calculate it relative to the train, making the problem fairly easy. You however would rather that we calculate with respect to the ground, even though there is no good reason to and it makes the problem twice as complicated.
The pendulum, while an interesting example, does not disprove the assertion made. We all know the earth rotates and orbits the sun and the sun orbits whatever, yet no obserbed deviation from straight line motion has beem measured. It is like doesn't deviate from straightline m,otion until operated on by outside forces,Thanks... you just proved my point. The whole solar system doesn't deviate unless perturbed by another force. For that matter the whole galaxy follows that logic. Possible the whole visible universe... but we can't tell because we have nothing to compare it too.

You loose nothing by using a non-ground frame of reference except for your insistance that the Earth is the only thing which is stationary.

What in the hell are you talking about man?

* If I drop a golf ball from a moving train and it lands on some grainy, but fairly uniform pavement, and
* I followed the trajectory of the golfball moving parallel with a line of rivets mounted in a vertical line on the outside of the train until it struck the pavement and
* witnessed the motion after that, I will see a golfball bounce back up into the original trajectory less a bit due to friction losses.
* If I were truly stationary, then the ball should receive a little chip shot to the rear of gthe train, due to the motion of the Ve passing by.
* But the ball had a component of momentum only in the direction of the moving train,
* hence the train os moving wirth respect to the Ve just like everyone knows.Is there a reason you put a * in the middle of a sentance?

If I were truly stationary, then the ball should receive a little chip shot to the rear of gthe train, due to the motion of the Ve passing by.Um, idiot, it does. This is the reason for it moving backwards (ignoring wind). do an experiment. Get a piece of wood and a track with ball, a release, and a webcam on next next to the ball (moving with it).

Move the ball at 2m/s and release it. It'll will slow down when it hits the wood.

Move the wood and release the ball from a steady state. It will speed up when it hits the wood.

IN EACH CASE THE CAMERA WILL SEE THE SAME THING. The reason for the ball changing direction is exactly the same in each case. It is not due to the earth having an absolute velocity of zero.

.. Um, idiot, it does.

I agree! geistkiesel has been a misbehaved idiot

First of all, the velocity condition being used most likely DOES exist. In your train case the person does have a V0 relative to the train when sitting in his seat. I want you to calculate the force between the guy in the seat and the train. An intelligent person would calculate it relative to the train, making the problem fairly easy. You however would rather that we calculate with respect to the ground, even though there is no good reason to and it makes the problem twice as complicated.

Why do you make assumptions about what I woulod do under some conditions that you construct? I wouldn't hesitate to measure zero, by inspection. as the force on the person riding in the train. Why should I not? As long as motions aeren't fantasy and have real physical implications they can always be deaklt with, but to remiove fromn consideratioon the motion of a frame that is measuring the relative velocity of the frame and photon is criminal. James R stated in a few posts ago that inertial frames were not real objects they were simply mathematical construicts, Yet when I read hios posts in oher threads, and my own, he sure seems to have been discussing real things as real frames.

Thanks... you just proved my point. The whole solar system doesn't deviate unless perturbed by another force. For that matter the whole galaxy follows that logic. Possible the whole visible universe... but we can't tell because we have nothing to compare it too.

You lose nothing by using a non-ground frame of reference except for your insistance that the Earth is the only thing,which is stationary.

No your point was not proved. I said the motion of the Ve, planet earth, the embankenmt, is measurably indistibguishable drom straight line motion. Evryone knows about orbits and rotations, and many can calulate positions of the sun earth system to a high degree of accuracy. But calculating schematics an abstractions is not a measurable modus operandi that distinguishes the motion of Ve different from straight line. You should look very closely what you just said, You jumped for joy by thinking the motion of he Ve wouild negate the thesis that Ve was a preferred inertial frame. Instead you defined everything as being other than an inertial reference frame. All objects at rest with respspect to Ve have the same inherited motion as Ve wherevere that object is located. on Ve.

Bjut Persol, you must recognize that the reality of the physical world is much different than that postulated by your mathematical tools, which can all be manipulated by any rational or irrational assumption you care to interject. Mother Nature is symmteric and has the strictest laws of all , but here is always a little slop, fudge factors, approximations that keep our focus on reailty

Finally, as an example, I know of no mathematical models that adequately describe the step by step processes that are implicit and expressed in all physical priocesses. An SR theoreist is prohibted in coming that close to reality, defining a schematic for the time restricted mode of energy exchange between accelerated paricles and the accelerating field , for inswtance. A history of modern scientific mathamatical models are based on the dynamics for which mathematics was designed in the first instance, and that was for the managing of business operations: mabntaining balance sheets.

I and others have addressed all these point in other threads... I'm not going to repeat it 11 times.

I and others have addressed all these point in other threads... I'm not going to repeat it 11 times.
You may have addressed them in yiour own minds but not in mine. So yohy are through then?

Is there a reason you put a * in the middle of a sentance?

Um, idiot, it does. This is the reason for it moving backwards (ignoring wind). do an experiment. Get a piece of wood and a track with ball, a release, and a webcam on next next to the ball (moving with it).

Move the ball at 2m/s and release it. It'll will slow down when it hits the wood.

Move the wood and release the ball from a steady state. It will speed up when it hits the wood.

IN EACH CASE THE CAMERA WILL SEE THE SAME THING. The reason for the ball changing direction is exactly the same in each case. It is not due to the earth having an absolute velocity of zero.

I can't follow the description . Can you make a simople drawing. I am truly trying tio understand.
You are saying are you that the observer seeing he ball hit the ground while she is assuming she is at reast and the embankment is moving will see what?

Is there a reason you put a * in the middle of a sentance?
[The * is probaqbly from a mistyped
Um, idiot, it does. This is the reason for it moving backwards (ignoring wind). do an experiment. Get a piece of wood and a track with ball, a release, and a webcam on next next to the ball (moving with it).

Move the ball at 2m/s and release it. It'll will slow down when it hits the wood.

Move the wood and release the ball from a steady state. It will speed up when it hits the wood.

IN EACH CASE THE CAMERA WILL SEE THE SAME THING. The reason for the ball changing direction is exactly the same in each case. It is not due to the earth having an absolute velocity of zero.

He can know he is motionless with respect to the train, but he can't simply close his eyes and not look any fiurther. The frame Ve and Vn frames are slaved together in motion,. This is seen when Vn and Ve are at rest with respect to each other, but when Vn accelerates all the common motion, or inherited motion does not go away, You are being absurd if that is what you are saying. If he feels and hears the clickety clack, knows the Ve frame does not acclerate becasuie it can't acclerate that leaves only his one option to contend with . What is so difficult about that?

Is there a reason you put a * in the middle of a sentance?

Um, idiot, it does. This is the reason for it moving backwards (ignoring wind). do an experiment. Get a piece of wood and a track with ball, a release, and a webcam on next next to the ball (moving with it).

Move the ball at 2m/s and release it. It'll will slow down when it hits the wood.

Move the wood and release the ball from a steady state. It will speed up when it hits the wood.

IN EACH CASE THE CAMERA WILL SEE THE SAME THING. The reason for the ball changing direction is exactly the same in each case. It is not due to the earth having an absolute velocity of zero.

The forward motion of the Vn momentum will propel the ball forward, you stupid asshole.. Why do you need a camera so you can give us a "Rodney King SLow Mo" version to prove your point??

If you are saying that the relative velocity of the earth frame and the passenger train are measurable on the surface of Ve as I described with my momstones relative to the planet you are beyond stupid. And why aren't there more automobile accidents when this mind crap virus of SR infects rational people driving automobiles and flying airplanes?
Death and destruction that is what. This what lies bring to the table.

You are still only observing relative motion. You, the stone, ansd the earth could be flying through space at 10,000mph and you'd not realize it.
I would know it stupid incompetent jerk.

James R stated in a few posts ago that inertial frames were not real objects they were simply mathematical construicts, Yet when I read hios posts in oher threads, and my own, he sure seems to have been discussing real things as real frames.

It is easier to write "the Earth frame" than to write "the frame in which the Earth is stationary", every time. It's just a matter of convenience to talk about "the frame of the car" or "the spaceship observer's reference frame".

If you're really confused, every time you see a statement like "the spaceship observer's reference frame", replace those words in your mind by "the reference frame in which the spaceship observer is stationary".

Take your amateurish professorial bullshit and go fuck yourself with it James R.

Touchy, touchy, geistkeisel. Did I hit a nerve somewhere?

When you have no real arguments, I guess personal insults are the only thing left.

Touchy, touchy, geistkeisel. Did I hit a nerve somewhere?

When you have no real arguments, I guess personal insults are the only thing left.
I was commenting on your "frame definition" bullshit. No I am not touchy, I just abhor phony incompetence. Regular incompetence I can undersatand and live with in peace, it is your kind of incompetence that generates the fuck you James R.

LMAO. You finally realize why your threads had no point, and you get all upset.

Einstein was the premier myth buster, as he busted the biggest myth of them all: the universal spacetime metric, the aether. Now, people like poltergeist there are green with envy over Einstein's veneration. He/they want to get in on all the glorious myth busting, but since Einstein won the Grand Prize of Questioning & Debunking Authority, others can only hope for scraps... and so they get vicious and attack Relativity. All in vain, utter vanity, alas!

Einstein was the premier myth buster, as he busted the biggest myth of them all: the universal spacetime metric, the aether. Now, people like poltergeist there are green with envy over Einstein's veneration. He/they want to get in on all the glorious myth busting, but since Einstein won the Grand Prize of Questioning & Debunking Authority, others can only hope for scraps... and so they get vicious and attack Relativity. All in vain, utter vanity, alas!
“


I have noticed that you never have any physics to offer us, so in violation of a deeply sincere promise I nade to a wise advisor of mine, and who, flatly speaking 'as an 'erring cndishn', though is is never in error, I am going to simply tell you Mr. Dristam, to go fuck off.

ADDENDUM TO POST: [Note, I decded to offer this that was posted in another thread for Mr. Dristam to comment on. I trust he technically up to the task.]

This is a continuation of a discussion of an absolute motion measuring device. It is based on the fundamental postulate that the motion of the emitted photon is independent of the motion of the source of the photon. The schematic is shown at three instantaneous times as the photon continues downward, while the frame continues to the right where constant velocity is assumed.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding about where I have been coming from here is a brief sketch of the peap machine. The two horizontal lines show a grid (one dimension of a xy plane grid) where all activity is in the x direction. Here the photon has just been emitted from a peap unit UA10 (upper A # 10)


T1
UA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||-
o


DA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||-



T2
UA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||-

o

DA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||-


T3
UA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||-


o
DA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||--||-


els of the three dimensional two tiered planar grid (3DTTPG).

You're the scum of the Earth, geist, so why would I bother commenting on your rubbish notions. If they have merit, then you can take them to the publication, Nature.

geistkiesel:

If you want to hit a moving target, do you aim for where it is now, or where it will be when the bullet gets there?

The source of the photons is merely a point in space, but it is invariant. It may be difficult to determine at times, but thr reaity of the invariance of the photon trajectory is cast in steel.

You didn't answer the question.

How do you determine that point in space?

And now another question arises...

Why is your method (yet to be relinqusihed) "difficult to determine at times?"

Are you saying that it may not be entirely possible to determine the sources' position using only space as your reference?

If you were on Earth and I was on a ship 5 light years away - what coordinates could you send to me that will allow me to go to that source point in space?

The source of the photons is merely a point in space, but it is invariant. It may be difficult to determine at times, but thr reaity of the invariance of the photon trajectory is cast in steel.

You didn't answer the question.

How do you determine that point in space?

The system measures frame velocity with respect to the position of the photon that is emitted. The device, the scematic is two or three post back, has an emitted photon from the frame. The photons are directed directly at the absorber located a known distance from the emitter. T rest the photon always is absorbed bits mirror image absorber/emitter, the up/down designations being the only difference in the location of he emitter/absorbers.

If the frame is moving, the "mirror image" has moved before the arrival of the photon, ergo the absorber/emitter that absorbes the photon will have a different identiofication and our ordinary lapto computer calulates the measured velocit of the frame wrt the invariant trajectory of the photon. As thge frame contionues to move the left side will eventuall catch up to the emitted phpotns, but before this happens the computer orders the photons to be emitted from an emitter/absorber located in a direct line as far from the on coming wall, before the photons are interferred with.

Methinks, by the nature of your questions that you have put more into what the device is designed to accomplish than I had intended, an what the device is limited to provide, namely cvelocity of he frame with a known straightline trajectoery.


And now another question arises...

Why is your method (yet to be relinqusihed) "difficult to determine at times?"

Are you saying that it may not be entirely possible to determine the sources' position using only space as your reference?

I was thinking about technical problems of calibration of the device starting from an unknown velocity, direction and absolute speed, whwich now that I have thunk about it, is not a real problem of any substance.


If you were on Earth and I was on a ship 5 light years away - what coordinates could you send to me that will allow me to go to that source point in spac and invariant e?

I probably wouldn't. Using EM transmission would put an enormous error into the problem, 10 light years, as a minimum, assuming you transmitted your position relative to a commonly known point, like Ve the earth.

I'm not being a smart ass, I'm just reminding you that the device design is no more a road map than is the speedometer in your automobile. I suppose iI would at least send an estimate of our mutual positions wrt some known stellar object and provide the best astronomical map available and let you determine your own direction.

The system measures frame velocity with respect to the position of the photon that is emitted. The device, the scematic is two or three post back, has an emitted photon from the frame. The photons are directed directly at the absorber located a known distance from the emitter.But the direction of the emitted photon is different for different observers, hence your system doesn't work.

I was thinking about technical problems of calibration of the device starting from an unknown velocity, direction and absolute speed, which now that I have thunk about it, is not a real problem of any substance.

Yeah, Einstein thunk that too: it's not a significant problem! You start with an unknown and you end up with a deeper unknown, and your device goes into the nearest dumpster. The only known will ever be C.

The system measures frame velocity with respect to the position of the photon that is emitted.

So, the postition of the photon when it was emitted is located in respect to where the photon was emitted - brilliant. :rolleyes:

The photons are directed directly at the absorber located a known distance from the emitter.

In other words, the distance the emitter is in relation to the absorver is 'relative.'

T rest the photon always is absorbed bits mirror image absorber/emitter, the up/down designations being the only difference in the location of he emitter/absorbers.

Wtf? :confused:

If the frame is moving, the "mirror image" has moved before the arrival of the photon...

Again, wtf? :confused:

the device is limited to provide, namely cvelocity of he frame with a known straightline trajectoery.

Which is little more than a device that might measure the speed of light. So what?

It does nothing to tell us the position of the source of the emitter, as I had asked.

is not a real problem of any substance.

Au contraire, mon fraire. It is a huge problem, one that your system fails to solve.

I probably wouldn't. Using EM transmission would put an enormous error into the problem, 10 light years, as a minimum, assuming you transmitted your position relative to a commonly known point, like Ve the earth.

Exactly - in other words, your system is pointless without the use of relativity.

Thank you.

The system measures frame velocity with respect to the position of the photon that is emitted.

So, the postition of the photon when it was emitted is located in respect to where the photon was emitted - brilliant. :rolleyes:

You may characterize the system anyway you choose, but be aware that the postulate of light that tells us the motion of a photon is independent of the motion of the sources, in this case the peap frame attached to the "inertial frame", and therefore is an independent entity in the universe. No one goes bonkers over the lack of locating the sun, for instance, wrt to the center of mass of the universe. The sun is just there. Of course some make measurements of relative motion wrt galaxies, stars in the Milky Way and so on, but what else can one do in such a huige place we find ourselves?

Q, the trajectory of the photon is invariant, wrt to the moving frame. There is "no after emission history" physically linking the photon and frame. The photon is located in a unique position in space. It doesn't require any external "refrerence point" and certainly for the purposes of measurement of the frame velocity. The exact location iof the trajectory with respect to any other stellar object, or any onject is thoroughly insignificant, irrelevant. The photon only has to be measured in the realtively small volume element of each of three coplanar peap grids, only.

The device measures velocity. It isn't a road may to Betelguese .

The photon when emitted is directed at the opposite peap unit. As the photon is in flight and the frame is moving the ultimate arrival point of the photon will be so many peap units from the last recorded by the computer system, a dx/dt is easily calculated.


The photons are directed directly at the absorber located a known distance from the emitter.

In other words, the distance the emitter is in relation to the absorver is 'relative.'

I wouldn't describe it as such, but if this blows your skirt up, go for it. I would say that the location of peaps are rigidly fixed in the frame. The planar grid is two tiered wiith the physical distance between all peaps exactly the same.

I live 2.23 miles from my friend's house. Do I live 2.23 miles relative to my friend. I don't talk that way do you?

T rest the photon always is absorbed by its mirror image absorber/emitter, the up/down designations being the only difference in the location of the emitter/absorbers.

Wtf? :confused:

OK, confused, me too. Here is the translation. The difference in location of a peap, the upper and lower unit are identified by location. The only difference in the location is that distance between the peaps. One is the upper, the other the lower. Let's say the UM27 and DM27 are pairs. The Computer only measures the time the absorber detected a photon. The emission time of the emitter, say the upper, is also known from the time of arrival of the photon from the down direction. If there is a constant exchange of photons between the U/D M27 pair, obviously the frame is at rest. If however, the UM27 emitted a photon at T1 and the D R14 was the arrival point of the photon, then this delta T is not different from the "at rest T", for motion along the X axis

Anyway, the computer is a slave. It only calculates delta arrival times and then publishes the Dx (distant between pairs looking down the trajectory of the photon. The delta T is just another number to crunch by the calculating algorythm.


If the frame is moving, the "mirror image" has moved before the arrival of the photon...

Again, wtf? :confused:

Lets say you are on a bridge over a rail system. A Train of small boxcars is at rest under the bridge, and as you drop little rocks into the boxcar beneath you all the stones end up in the same box car, Now the train begins to move, but you aren't moving. You did not accelerate. Now that stone you released just as the train begain it motion, does not end up in the same bioxcar as when the train was at rest. The next, or the 14th next boxcar, depending on the speed along the tracks, will get your stone. The 1st boxcar moved and was replaced by a cousin boxcar following behind.

The analogy is direct.


the device is limited to provide, namely velocity of the frame with a known straightline trajectory.

Which is little more than a device that might measure the speed of light. So what?

It already knows the speed of light. The devce is merely comparing arrival times by any absorber absorber relative tot he time of emission. So what?

The known velocity of light allows the algorythm to assume a known delta T of travel time for photon between emitter and absorber (actually it doesn't assume anything. The devices are the source of data the computer uses to make calculations).

Even though the frame is moving, and assume no variation off the x-axis, the delta T will be constant. It is the newly arriving peap that provides the measure of frame velocity. But because the algirythm knows or anticipates off x-axis motion, the variation in dT, while small is real. In any event there are two other grid panels designed to measure X and Z motion.

D = VT. and V = D/T. Here D is the linear distance the frame has traveled, or the distance between peaps, calibrated in meters, or km. And T the time between emission and absorbtion.

It does nothing to tell us the position of the source of the emitter, as I had asked.

is not a real problem of any substance.

Au contraire, mon fraire. It is a huge problem, one that your system fails to solve.
Well you know where the source of the emitter is located .

There is an xy planar grid, where the up and down planes are parallel. The location of each peap unit on the planar grid is known exactly. The system merely measures DT and DX. The DT in uniform motion is a slam dunk trivial task as one direction along a planar grid can be arbitrarily selected as X. If the motion is uniform then all distances of the yz-plane are constant, or the device can be oriented such hat the yz-palne is perpendicul;ar to the motion and hence no variation in the DY direction will be mesured as the photons are moving in the same direction as the motion of the grid. The DT of this frame will be different as the lower plane is moving into the direction of the oncoming photons, and the upper plane is moving away from the oncoming return photons. The zx-plane is moving parllal to the x-axis and functions as the X-axis as the photon DT does not exhibit the "collision" with oncoming photons and is "catching up" of the return photons.

Here is a simple round trip of photons moving in a plane perpendiculalry to the frame motion.
D/___________<-/ U -> v. A photon arrives at the D absorber after traveling a distance ct. That point of arrival is VT short of the known distance between the emitter-absorber. On the return trip the frame has moved VT by the time the photon just leaves the D absorber (now emitter). When the distance ct is covered in the X direction it arrives at the original invariant location of the emitted photon, and the U absorber is now 2VT ahead of the photon. Counting from here the photon must cover a distance cT' = 2VT + VT'. The VT' of course, is the distance the frame has moved when he photon covers the 2VT. Hence, after some algebra, T' = T(2V)/(C - V).

You see Mr Q, this T' is the mysterious lost time period that special relativity says is covering for us by frrame contracvion and/or time dilation, when these esoteric calculations are not required.

This T' is also the lost time giving us loss of simultaneity, which SR says is recovered by SRT, which when one considers the resulting SRT demanding time dilation, frame contraction, loss of simultaneity, loss opf absolute time and space, is a substantially and totally unnecessary deflection of physical law. The resulting confusion perpetrated on an innocent general population is magnified tremendously.


Originally Posted by Q

"If you were on Earth and I was on a ship 5 light years away - what coordinates could you send to me that will allow me to go to that source point in space and invariant e?
”
Geistkiesel responded:
"I probably wouldn't. Using EM transmission would put an enormous error into the problem, 10 light years, as a minimum, assuming you transmitted your position relative to a commonly known point, like Ve the earth."

Exactly - in other words, your system is pointless without the use of relativity.

Thank you.
I added your question (in red) to which I responded in blue). You inadvertently ommitted this question when you published this post. Also there seems to be a typo and the question on its face is ambiguous , buit I understand what you are asking.

As I said, the device measures frame speed rela'tive to the invariant straight-line trajectory motion of photons. The device is not a road map to Betelguese.

Here is the same answer I published before:

"I probably wouldn't. Using EM transmission would put an enormous error into the problem, 10 light years, as a minimum, assuming you transmitted your position relative to a commonly known point, like Ve the earth [frame].

I'm not being a smart ass, I'm just reminding you that the device design is no more a road map than is the speedometer in your automobile. I suppose I would at least send an estimate of our mutual positions wrt some known stellar object(s) and provide the best astronomical map available and let you determine your own direction."

No one goes bonkers over the lack of locating the sun, for instance, wrt to the center of mass of the universe. The sun is just there.

That would be a very good answer - if it came from an elementary school kid.

Of course some make measurements of relative motion wrt galaxies, stars in the Milky Way and so on, but what else can one do in such a huige place we find ourselves?

We make use of relativity - that's what everyone is telling you.

The device measures velocity. It isn't a road may to Betelguese .

Then it is entirely useless, as I've already said. We can already meaure velocity, thanks.

I wouldn't describe it as such, but if this blows your skirt up, go for it.

It's not a matter of 'going for it,' its a matter of what works, and your so-called system does not work.

I live 2.23 miles from my friend's house. Do I live 2.23 miles relative to my friend. I don't talk that way do you?

Yes, I do - the two statements are the same.

One is the upper, the other the lower.

In other words, they are 'relative' to one another.

The analogy is direct.

It is an analogy of relativity.

The devce is merely comparing arrival times by any absorber absorber relative tot he time of emission. So what?

Then what purpose does it serve?

Here D is the linear distance the frame has traveled, or the distance between peaps, calibrated in meters, or km.

Again, one is 'relative' to the other.

Well you know where the source of the emitter is located .

I could never know if space is my only reference. I need to know the location 'relative' to other objects in space.

The location of each peap unit on the planar grid is known exactly.

Yes, because they are 'relative' to each other.

direction will be mesured as the photons are moving in the same direction as the motion of the grid

The photons are moving 'relative' to the grid.

The resulting confusion perpetrated on an innocent general population is magnified tremendously.

The confusion is on your part. The 'innocent general population' is safe.

As I said, the device measures frame speed rela'tive to the invariant straight-line trajectory motion of photons. The device is not a road map to Betelguese.

Again, it measures velocity, which is already a known. Other than that, your system is pointless, hence useless.

Everything you've tried to explain thus far has required the use of relativity, and so far you have failed miserably to attempt to explain absolute motion. You've done little more than explain a method of measuring light speed.

Back to the drawing board.

[


Of course some make measurements of relative motion wrt galaxies, stars in the Milky Way and so on, but what else can one do in such a huige place we find ourselves?

We make use of relativity - that's what everyone is telling you.

You say a few sentences below that you don't need my machine as the "velocity" is already known.

Why are ypu involved in this post anyway, just to keep me busy answering your useless posts?


[i]The device measures velocity. It isn't a road may to Betelguese .

Then it is entirely useless, as I've already said. We can already meaure velocity, thanks.

How do you measure velocity in a closed container in free space? You know the postulate of SR that says it is impossible to detect or measure translaory motion of unaccelerated bodies in free space? This is SR, basic stuff., so how do you measue velocity?
I told you how I measured velocity, now you tell me how you do it.



One is the upper, the other the lower.

In other words, they are 'relative' to one another.

Yes, they are relative to each other..
What is so magic about the use of the word "relative"?


I mean the roof is over my head. You seem to place a different meaning on the situation by insisting that the roof is "relative" to my head. Have you added anything to understanding anything?


The devce is merely comparing arrival times by any absorber
relative to the time of emission. So what?

Then what purpose does it serve?

The purpose of the device is to measure the velocity of a material frame with respect to absolute zero velocity.

There is nothing in SR that can come near to providing this kind of velocity information the peaps provide. SR theory rejects the concept of absolute anything including velocity.


Here D is the linear distance the frame has traveled, or the distance between peaps, calibrated in meters, or km.

Again, one is 'relative' to the other


yes they afre "relative" to each other, Why do you persist in asking such questions? So what? When you say one s traveliong relative to the other? One what is traveling wrt to the other what? The peaps are rigidly fixed in the planar grid. The relative velocity of the peap units is zero. The relative velocity is the motion of the peaps with reszpect to the invariant photon trajectory.

Well you know where the source of the emitter is located .

I could never know if space is my only reference. I need to know the location 'relative' to other objects in space.
.

There could be as many as a few million double tiered planar arrays where the exact ralative location of each unit is known and the device is in space also.

Further, the iunits are connected to the input port of a computer where each data bit is used to calculate the velocity of the light trajectory that is unvariably located in space. What other kind of information do you need, what kind of information do you need outside the device? When you look at the speedometer of your automobile do you ask for any other external information to tell you how freaking fast your are traveling?


The location of each peap unit on the planar grid is known exactly. [

Yes, because they are 'relative' to each other.
OK, they are relative toeach other , so what? .


direction will be mesured as the photons are moving in the same direction as the motion of the grid

The photons are moving 'relative' to the grid.

I have to correct the statement above, Direction is measured as the grid frame is moving with respect to an invariantly located photon trajectory
located in a unique spot in absolute space and it is the frame that is moving with respect to a phuysically invariant frame at absolte velocity = 0.. Generally the frame is moving pependicualr with respect to the absolutely located photon trajectory.


As I said, the device measures frame speed rela'tive to the invariant straight-line trajectory motion of photons. The device is not a road map to Betelguese.

Again, it measures velocity, which is already a known. Other than that, your system is pointless, hence useless.

What do you mean about the velocity that is already known? Why does your speedomenter keep out putting your speed of your automobile if the velocity is already known?

The velocity of the spacecraft is noiwn by whom? Where did yiu get that statement? What does you mean about that statement? What in he hell are you talking about man.

Everything you've tried to explain thus far has required the use of relativity, and so far you have failed miserably to attempt to explain absolute motion. You've done little more than explain a method of measuring light speed.

You've got it backwards Q man. The concepts of the device I designed are contrary an anethema, to the fundamental postulates of SR and you know it. I suppose you feel threatened.?
Well relax man. MacDonalds is hiring , and they train you too.

The purpose of the device is to measure the velocity of a material frame with respect to absolute zero velocity.

Failed. You were unable to show absolute zero velocity and you have admitted SR is required to explain the positions of your test equipment.

You've got it backwards Q man. The concepts of the device I designed are contrary an anethema, to the fundamental postulates of SR and you know it.

Sorry, your concepts are pointless - that has already been confirmed.

I suppose you feel threatened.?

Only by your lack of syntax.

Well relax man. MacDonalds is hiring , and they train you too.

No thanks, and besides, you probably wouldn't want me as your boss.

The purpose of the device is to measure the velocity of a material frame with respect to absolute zero velocity.

Failed. You were unable to show absolute zero velocity and you have admitted SR is required to explain the positions of your test equipment.


The trajectory of the photon is invariant. The trajectory is straight lince sine the sinstant th ephototn was emitted. Thevariation in straighline motion means the photon drift is zero velocity.

You've got it backwards Q man. The
concepts of the device I designed are contrary, an anethema, to the fundamental postulates of SR and you know it.

Sorry, your concepts are pointless - that has already been confirmed.
confirmed by you, that's what I'm betting on?

I suppose you feel threatened.?

Only by your lack of syntax.
What is this syntax of which you speak? You mean the ladies of the night are supposed to file some proof of income with the IRS? So if I provided yopu with some syntax you wouldn't feel threatened? Sorry, I ain't a gummint man.

Well relax man. MacDonalds is hiring , and they train you too.

No thanks, and besides, you probably wouldn't want me as your boss.

I love the positivity you express for the future. You're going into management in the food service industry!

Geistkiesel

The trajectory is straight lince sine the sinstant th ephototn was emitted. Thevariation in straighline motion means the photon drift is zero velocity.

hehe - you really do love making stuff up as you go along.

Baffle them with bullshit.

The trajectory of the photon is invariant. The trajectory is straight lince sine the sinstant th ephototn was emitted. Thevariation in straighline motion means the photon drift is zero velocity.Yet again, wrong. We've been pointing this out since you've started this little diatribe.

The trajectory changes.

Yet again, wrong. We've been pointing this out since you've started this little diatribe.

The trajectory changes.
A photon moving in free space moves with uniform speed and direction. To change the photon trajectory an external force is required. Where is the force that changes the invariant trajectory in your world?

A photon moving in free space moves with uniform speed and direction.

... in one particular frame. In another frame, the direction will be different.

http://landau1.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/srelwhat.html

Since you seem completely incapable of teaching yourself something....

GEISTKIESEL
Dont Ignore me, I am not an Ignorant.

When an object starts acceleration then its time starts to slow down. This means if we wana know which object is in acceleration then it should become clear by looking at whose clocks are lagging behind. Is this true ?

Both object are going away but even though there were only two object , we should know by looking at their clocks who is in acceleration , ie. the object with slower clock will be speeding up, Am I wrong here ? Please Help.

GEISTKIESEL
Dont Ignore me, I am not an Ignorant.

When an object starts acceleration then its time starts to slow down. This means if we wana know which object is in acceleration then it should become clear by looking at whose clocks are lagging behind. Is this true ?

Both object are going away but even though there were only two object , we should know by looking at their clocks who is in acceleration , ie. the object with slower clock will be speeding up, Am I wrong here ? Please Help.
I was not ignoring you. Your conslusions are the same as mine, but yo must know I am not anSR theorist and I reject the SR theory altogether.

... in one particular frame. In another frame, the direction will be different.
You aren't talking about a change of direction in the sense that the photon had a force applied, only that another frame came into the neighbrhood and saw the photon. You were simply not discssing force, is this correct?

I am having a bit of Hmmmm, trying to understand the meaning of your statement here at this point n the thread. I searched back a few posts and couldn't put a "direction" to your post.

http://landau1.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/srelwhat.html

Since you seem completely incapable of teaching yourself something....

Thanks for the link. Actually, I have looked at this before, but it has been sometime. I cannot argue with Fowler's expertise in SR but he isn't perfect. He makes the same "omission" as most modern authors when quoting the results of Michelson M9orely experimen ,which is invariably discussed in terms of a null results, or 0 finding which was not the case. Both MM and Dayton Miller for the next 30 ears repeated MM experinments and found what MM dound, an "ether drag" relative velocity of approximately 8 km/sec.

I say this for the reason that with this seeming trivial oversight Fowler's paper is incomplete and cannot be used as a source of "information" at least as far as the results of MM experiments are relevant. For instance if you quoted Fowler and his discussopm of MM experiments you and I cpould not have a rational discussion if you rely on what Fowler said. The reason being I have Fowler's information, because I read it , but I have other information that cosntradicts Fowler, or at least says something significantly dfferent than Fowler. Who is correct, Fowler or someone else? Fowler could be correct, but . . .

If he had said something to the effect Ihave red other accounts saying that MM did not find a nul and I concluded that those papes are in in error for the following reasons . . . .

Again I am only using this one example but you must understand that i cannot accept a "theory" based only on the rsults of that structure. I have to see or determine what the fundamental structure of that system is. What is the physical basis of the theory.

http://landau1.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/srelwhat.html

Since you seem completely incapable of teaching yourself something....
Persol, I do not recall if you and I ever discussed theme of this thread, regarding the impossibility of a test distinguishing absolute motion in free space?

If you have responded to thos before then feel free to iognore this. Two space ships both measure a relative velocity of 6000 units wrt each other. Let us assume that each had one year earlier accelerated away from their home planets, each different than the other. How can one determine his own original velocity form the condition they find themsleves in free space?

lets call the ships Va and Vb and both detect a collision course trajectory. The ships are approaching each other.

Va launches a probe Vap that can accelerate and also measure relative velocity and with the priobe equipment it can measure the relative motion between itself and both Va and Vbm separately..
As Vap starts from a velocity relative to Va as Va = Vap, the relative velocity can always be known. Vap accelerates in the direction that Vb is assumed to be moving and Vap detrmines it needs to speed up which it continuously does untill its relative velocity Vap - Vb = 0. As Vap also knows its relative velocity wrt to Va, and knows tha now Vb can only measure the relative velocity as before, Vb only measures the same relative velocity wrt Va as before when Vap send Vb a message. "My relative velocity wrt Va is 2000", say. "my relative velocity with respect to Vb is 0." Now=the information Vap sent to is correct and therefore Vb can put himself in the Vap condition when Vap left the Va ship.

SR says I cannot do this. Do you see any flaws in the analysis or the system of detection of absolute velocity, as I have defined the term here by the results of the experiment?

... am not anSR theorist and I reject the SR theory altogether.

are aware of astronauts who stay for long periods in orbit loose 10 to 15 seconds of their wrist watches ?

Was this clock slowing due to relativity? Relativity requires extfreme speeds or extreme lengths of time in order that the effect seen. Were these conditions satid=sfied in the watch scenario you decribed?

Thanks for the link. Actually, I have looked at this before, but it has been sometime. I cannot argue with Fowler's expertise in SR but he isn't perfect. He makes the same "omission" as most modern authors when quoting the results of Michelson M9orely experimen ,which is invariably discussed in terms of a null results, or 0 finding which was not the case. Both MM and Dayton Miller for the next 30 ears repeated MM experinments and found what MM dound, an "ether drag" relative velocity of approximately 8 km/sec.And you make the same "ommision" as most modern kooks. You completely ignroed that M-M isn't the only experiment listed that deals with realtivity. In particular, the link was to counter your claim that "a photon moving in free space moves with uniform speed and direction"... and then arguing that it didn't change in different frames.

But you probably didn't read that far....

Va launches a probe Vap that can accelerate and also measure relative velocity and with the priobe equipment it can measure the relative motion between itself and both Va and Vbm separately..
As Vap starts from a velocity relative to Va as Va = Vap, the relative velocity can always be known. Vap accelerates in the direction that Vb is assumed to be moving and Vap detrmines it needs to speed up which it continuously does untill its relative velocity Vap - Vb = 0. As Vap also knows its relative velocity wrt to Va, and knows tha now Vb can only measure the relative velocity as before, Vb only measures the same relative velocity wrt Va as before when Vap send Vb a message. "My relative velocity wrt Va is 2000", say. "my relative velocity with respect to Vb is 0." Now=the information Vap sent to is correct and therefore Vb can put himself in the Vap condition when Vap left the Va ship.your last sentence makes no sense to me... I was with you up till then.

But regardless, that doesn't get you any closer to determining absolute motion.... it's still relative.

your last sentence makes no sense to me... I was with you up till then.

But regardless, that doesn't get you any closer to determining absolute motion.... it's still relative.
The last sentence states that once the Vap has delivered the informaion available to he Vap, Vb can then detemine his absolute velcity. i fear we we may have the beginnings of a quibble here so let me define my use of the word, "absolute velocity".

Lets us assume that Va and Vb both measured their respective velociies wrt their home planets. Now as Vap measured a relative velocity with respect to Va, the Vap mother ship, at the same time Vap mesured the relative velocity with respect to Vb = 0, then Vb can adopt the Vap informaion for him self. Here we made up the 2000 unit Vap - Va relative velocity, which now tells us what the velocity distribution, or contribution, to the "relative" velocity of Va and Vb are.The Va conribution to the relative velocity of 6000 units is 4000, and the Vb contribution to the 6000 unit relative velocity is 2000 units.. The numbers, 4000 and 2000 are not allowed to be determined by SR. This is my understanding of the basic postulate of SR.

Is there any further confusion regarding my post, which admittedly was skewed in the final sentence? If you follow the description, then you understand my use of "relative velocity" and "absolute velocity" . Does your meaning of "absolute" differ from my own in the context of this post?

Without a showing now that an absolute velociy wrt 0 can be shown as possible, I restrict the term to the measured velocity of the Va and Vb wrt their home planets, being 4000 and 2000 units each.

Without a showing now that an absolute velociy wrt 0 can be shown as possible, I restrict the term to the measured velocity of the Va and Vb wrt their home planets, being 4000 and 2000 units each.Good, then this thread is done.

Good, then this thread is done.

No, you're done. Forks get stuck in you, Persol.
Go, pen a thread, paint this then, an inch thick:
relativity's dead, s'been put to bed.

While I am preparing my visuals I thought this proof of absolute zero velocity should be aired by some critical, knowing and unbiased scientists. Do you know of any such beings on this, the planet with the blue sky?

“The motion of light is independent of the motion of the source of light.”

As well s the postulate that:

The speed of light is a constant C measured in all reference frames [with respect to absolute zero velocity? We shall see] ,

and the law of inertia is where I start and where I finish.

An emitted photon maintains a straight-line trajectory (photrak) until acted upon by an external force

Take some stones drop them in a boxcar stationary under your bridge. They all hit the same boxcar. Do this at a known rate and when the train moves notice how the stones always start out heading for one boxcar that moves ouit of the way before the stone arrives, until it finally lands in one of the boxcars. We know the height, of the stone drop, we know the time-of-flight of the stone and ergo we know he train velpcot with respect to the straightline motion of the stoen, but the stone is on a slightrly moving frame, this wont do, will it?

We replace you with a photon emitter/absorber pairs that are lined up such that each can direct photons in a straight line to the other. When an emitter, unit is you, the observer, the opposite emitter/absorber is the boxcar and then the roles reverse etc.

You must see that a photon in flight directed at an absorber will always miss the absorber if it moves out of the way. If you have a planar arrangement, , of these two tiered arrays full of the emitter/absiorber pairs thousands on a side, there will always be an absorber to catch the photon when the oiginal instantanrously targeted absorber has moved. The distance between the planar array is fixed and known. The distance between emitter/absorber pairs is fixed and known. The speed of light is know.Therefore, if an emitted photon does not arrive at the absorber directly below (or above), that is to whjere it was originally aiomed, it will arrive at another and that absorption and emission is used in the computer program to calculate velocity. Three dinmensional arrangements provides all possible directions of motion.

The planar arrays are rigidly attached to the moving frame. Now whatever an on board observer sees, or think he sees, the emitted photons continue along their straightline motion until absorbed. The refefrence frame,. the hadware can be moving all over the place, yet the photon could care less.

So there is a turn or a dive so what? The system records the error in time-of -flight and calulates the change of direction, ans speed.

If we had an infinitely long planar two tierd planararray one photon path is all we would ever see and our infinitely long space ship would always know to a very high degree of accuracy, or resolution, what the ship velovcity is with respect to absolute zero. The ship moves relative to the absolutely stationary line, or reference frame component, defined by the photon trajectory, which is invariant in its motion.

A solitary space ship passing a single photon trajectory emitted on the other side of the universe can easily measure its velocity wrt the invariant line. Here, we are not measuring miotion wrt the speed of the photons that generate the line, we are measure against zero motion of the line itself.

I don't know how you define absolute zero velocity, but I define as that reference frame coordinate system that is invariiant in trajectory, whose motion is independent of the source of its cordinates origin and moving uniformly, where here the uniform motion is a pure velocity = 0.

Geistkiesel..

You must see that a photon in flight directed at an absorber will always miss the absorber if it moves out of the way.But once again this is misleading. If the emitter is moving as well then the photon will hit the absorber.
A solitary space ship passing a single photon trajectory emitted on the other side of the universe can easily measure its velocity wrt the invariant line.No... it can't. The angle of that line will be different depending on your motion. If you are are at 0c with respect to the emitter, it will go straight across. If you have a velocity though, it will appear slanted.

But none of that really matters, because you are still measuring your velocity with respect to something else even if it did work.

But once again this is misleading. If the emitter is moving as well then the photon will hit the absorber.

Why do you say this is occuring. Let us assume the absorption reemission process is euivalent to a mirror reflection for any delta T purposes.


A solitary space ship passing a single photon trajectory emitted on the other side of the universe can easily measure its velocity wrt the invariant line.

[quote=Persol]
No... it can't. The angle of that line will be different depending on your motion. If you are are at 0c with respect to the emitter, it will go straight across. If you have a velocity though, it will appear slanted.

The angle is different , you are perpendicular to the line. OK bearwith me. Let us assume you know the line is a photon beam, stream whatever. And let us assume you even detect a "direction" , or even iof you don't you look both ways and you see nothing as far as you can see. "Hmmm, you say,' it looks like the light came from the other side of the universe.", but remember, I only said the line was a reference point for an invariant line, it was the invariant line, that was by all the laws of physics, invariant in position. The straightline motion is not affected by the motion of the origin of the light. The speed of light is measured constant at C from all frames of reference, constant velocity and finally, an object will continue in uniform motion until acted on by an outside force.

The only thing you are intersested in is "is it moving". No, you conclude, not by the laws of physics it isn't moving, from whatever frame all see the same thing, to wit, zero motion in the line.


No... it can't. The angle of that line will be different depending on your motion. If you are are at 0c with respect to the emitter, it will go straight across. If you have a velocity though, it will appear slanted.

I noticed you never gave the slightest quiver of a hint that the line was moving. And remember you are a sophisticated physicist, not some dumb stupid observer, probably a blonde, that can't even tell if her fucking train is moving.


But none of that really matters, because you are still measuring your velocity with respect to something else even if it did work.

I can't put any wool over your eyes can I? You are absolutely 100% right on ,slam dunk right. Dumb dumb ding-dong me, I am measuring my speed with respect to something else, yes, with respect to zero motion.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/qanda3.html#54

Ok I was a bit wrong about seconds but read the question 4 in the above link

Look what NASA is saying , its not just theory, its a tried and tested fact

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/qanda3.html#54

Ok I was a bit wrong about seconds but read the question 4 in the above link

Look what NASA is saying , its not just theory, its a tried and tested fact
i cannot argue somethiing I don't have to argue with, like he experometnal parameters of the time dilation experiments. Certainly your post was not such a docukents. Ypu aren't atempting to uese the reputation of NASA to prove relativity theory are you?

The paper you referenced was a public information sheet tha didn't have a lot of science in it if any. You realize do you not that NASA was basically formed niot as a sicientific organization designed to count the number of angels dancing the boogie-woogie around some nonexistent, or no-observed black holes. NASA was created as a military arm of the United States's, not a scientific arm. Outside the he communications benefit and bomb delivery pogtential form space behicles, which doesn't nelong to god fearing and loving USA, anyone can go "up" . If the US created NASA for military purpsoes there has to be more than speculation from Hiollywood miovies that generated the government's deep pockets commitments. I wonder who the enemy is out there and if we've made contact.

RawThinkTank the thread here is a challenge to James R tha "no one can determine absolute velocity". I did you see, and you missed it, but then you are just on James R team maybe? You don't seem the least bit interested and could care less about the science, this is what I see.

Now, Raw Think Tank, you know what this thread is all about don't you? You know I just worte a brief little note showing you how an absolute zeo velocity frame of reference can be constructed and you respond with blatant propaganda?

NASA said this and NASA said that, where is your physics? In a propaganda flyer.

Can't you offer any criticism of my note by something specific there? My god Raw, I let it all hang out so to speak, and you show this forum NASA propaganda as counter to my zero absolute velocity system, propaganda against my absolute velocity frame of reference?

Do yo know that some times I really get the impression that there is a dedicated and coordinated resistance to attacks by SR dissidents. Is there any truth to this that you are maware of??

RawThinkTank, with a name like thatg you should be able to oprivide more than progpaganmda.Much m,roe> anti SR ists

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/qanda3.html#54

Ok I was a bit wrong about seconds but read the question 4 in the above link

Look what NASA is saying , its not just theory, its a tried and tested fact

Looky what I found. You don't realize what I did what his note 'like to do' I told how a thing worked I didn't try to slam anyone, therory or otherwise.

"If U r more interested in proving why things wont work rather than telling how to make them work then please dont read my threads and dont waste my precious time by doing that, I am fedup with such humans, just leave."

Now if the author of this passed out propaganda as input into a scientific discussion I would think something llike, "hypocirtical" maybe.

I think you need to go and lie down, your communications ability is failing.

That aside, which bit of:
"This effect (which should shift the orbits of satellites near the Earth by tiny amounts) was recently proven by a comparison of the orbits of the geodetic satellites LAGEOS I (launched 1976) and LAGEOS II (launched 1992)."
and:
"For example, a highly precise atomic clock flying in an experiment called NAVEX on STS-61A/Challenger in 1985 measured a slowdown of 0.000,000,000,295 seconds for each second of flight, almost exactly what Einstein’s formulas predicted."

Do you not understand. CAn you explain these experimental results in any way by using your theory? If you can, congratulations, your next step is to make a prediction about something else, preferably something that is still uncertain in modern physics, (like the movement of Mercury was a hundred years ago, or like black body radiation.) and see what can be done to test it.

I think you need to go and lie down, your communications ability is failing.

That aside, which bit of:
"This effect (which should shift the orbits of satellites near the Earth by tiny amounts) was recently proven by a comparison of the orbits of the geodetic satellites LAGEOS I (launched 1976) and LAGEOS II (launched 1992)."
and:
"For example, a highly precise atomic clock flying in an experiment called NAVEX on STS-61A/Challenger in 1985 measured a slowdown of 0.000,000,000,295 seconds for each second of flight, almost exactly what Einstein’s formulas predicted."

Do you not understand. CAn you explain these experimental results in any way by using your theory? If you can, congratulations, your next step is to make a prediction about something else, preferably something that is still uncertain in modern physics, (like the movement of Mercury was a hundred years ago, or like black body radiation.) and see what can be done to test it.

You ask can I explain anything using my theory. Just exactly what theory are you referring. I merely constricted a method of using known attributes of light motion to measure the relative velocity of a space ship with respect to velocity v = 0, the velociy of a photon trajectory, moving pependicular to the direction of motion of the moving frame.


Like I respnded in an earlier post, just get me the published document that descrbed he experimental parameters and allow me to look at it.zthis is all I asked for. I did see the paper that rawthinktank presented to me as propaganda, and I atill do.

Unfortunately, it seems that there is no detialed experimental info on the NAVEX experiment available online. What it looks like is that two atomic clocks, using the same method of time measurement, were synchronised on earth, and one was sent into orbit, the other left on Earth. The difference in time between the 2 when the one in orbit returned to earth is what matters.
The same goes for the LAgeos 1 and 2 satellite orbital comparison. It was published in the journal "Nature", which has a good reputation, but is not as far as I know freely available online. THis article here has more info:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html

Unfortunately, it seems that there is no detialed experimental info on the NAVEX experiment available online. What it looks like is that two atomic clocks, using the same method of time measurement, were synchronised on earth, and one was sent into orbit, the other left on Earth. The difference in time between the 2 when the one in orbit returned to earth is what matters.
The same goes for the LAgeos 1 and 2 satellite orbital comparison. It was published in the journal "Nature", which has a good reputation, but is not as far as I know freely available online. THis article here has more info:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html
Thank you for the link Guthrie. It would be nice to have the original published paper here, especially as the level of intensity of disagreement between the various positions regarding special relativity seems to be increasing.

Measuring Absolute Velocity (a tangent)

Classically absolute velocity definitely can not be measured.
It is essential to have the speed of light understood to remain constant however.

Now I hate throwing bad science after good, but I must explain. Suppose the speed of light was not constant in all reference frames. An object a rest would measure a speed C, but a moving object would measure something less or greater. And hence by performing experiment one could determine ones velocity without external reference. Do not mistake this for a reason the speed of light is constant, which is due to the conservation of energy.

Although impractical, it could be possible to use an external reference. If one had a function describing the background radiation for a given standard of rest, it would only be a matter of measuring the change in observational energy due to the observers’ velocity.
λ' = λ sqrt( (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) )
Δλ/λ=GM/(Rc^2) ; should one wish to compensate for the devices own gravity.

So its basically looking out the window to see that your moving, if we use the cosmic microwave background as our reference possibly we could have some understanding of our motion compared to the birth of the universe, and perhaps the universe was born at rest. Pure speculation.

If you were in a star it wouldn’t work. If you couldn’t get your detector cold enough it wouldn’t work.

Measuring Absolute Velocity (a tangent)

Classically absolute velocity definitely can not be measured.
It is essential to have the speed of light understood to remain constant however.
The classical retriction on measuring the absolute velocity is a mere confessed restriction on classical thinking ability.

Absolute zero velocity measurement - AKA - The Big Myth Breaker (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3488&stc=1)

For critics, real and imaginary, please assume I am aware of "special relativity" objections to this post. If you can break the proposed measuirng device from an attack on the merits of the description contained withn the four conrners of this document, then go for it.

Geistkiesel.

I just want to make sure that I never get so engrosed in theories that I would forget practical knowledge instead. I am not JamesR, I want to be on the right side not in anypersons team. I dont like politics unlike JamesR, who would rather ignore facts to make look theories that he studied are right.

RawThinkTank,

The fact is, you can't understand the explanations given to you, and therefore resort to ad hominem tactics.

RawThinkTank,

The fact is, you can't understand the explanations given to you, and therefore resort to ad hominem tactics.

James R this thread is dedicated to you and so is this-absolute zero velocity mesuremnt scheme (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3515&stc=1)

No one has chipped he paint on this one, but many have looked. I think some might want your input at least that king that responsds with specific laws of physics and maintaning a minimum, say zero, use of ad hominems . What are hominemsanyway, they're not grits are they?

Dear geistkiesel,
You can even imagine what a foolishness you are spreading over Internet. Go on my site www.minescience.com (http://www.minescience.com) read there Lectures on SRT in volume 6 of "The Scientific Notes". Especially look on formulas (52) that explain how light will move: its velocities along direction of motion and across it are changing. The speed of light is absolute, not its velocity!!!

Dear geistkiesel,
You can even imagine what a foolishness you are spreading over Internet. Go on my site www.minescience.com (http://www.minescience.com) read there Lectures on SRT in volume 6 of "The Scientific Notes". Especially look on formulas (52) that explain how light will move: its velocities along direction of motion and across it are changing. The speed of light is absolute, not its velocity!!!

This is not a challenge but a suggestion.

WEBSTER:

Speed - (2a) the rate of movement or motion; velocity.

Velocity - (1) quickness or rapidity or motion or action; swiftness; speed.

Since each term as used in general language is entirely interchangeable, perhaps you should specify the differance technically as used scientifically.

Go and learn any textbook in Physics: speed is module of velosity, and velocity is a vector.
Webster gives you terminology in common language, not the scientific definitions. And you are not in market, but in scientific Forum. So, learn scientific definitions and terms. In other words, add to Webster some scientific textbook....

Dear geistkiesel,
You can even imagine what a foolishness you are spreading over Internet. Go on my site www.minescience.com (http://www.minescience.com) read there Lectures on SRT in volume 6 of "The Scientific Notes". Especially look on formulas (52) that explain how light will move: its velocities along direction of motion and across it are changing. The speed of light is absolute, not its velocity!!!

It is strange Yuriy a form of deja vu all over again. I consider your statement about my foolishenss the same way I consider those spreading SR over the internet. Those reading and comparing will simply consider the relative merits of what they read and take a choice correct? Roughly you can call this "freedom of speech and choice". Are you familiar with the term?

There was a time when some who felt they had not only the "truth" of the description of nature they also considered themselves the exclusive authority in judging that obviously superior knowledge. The tone of your post makes me think you feel very strongly about your sense of physical reality and your sense of yourself as the exclusive, or one of the exclusive dissemenators of the truth.

Now, Giardano Bruno and Jeanne D'Arc, both pesky little dissidents, they were probably liberals, paid a very handsome price learning this lesson, when they dared challenge the prevailing wisdom of authority. Their last words were both recorded in history as the flames created by humans with butane lighters were shooting upward to the stakes to which they were tied. Rising ever more acutely with a hungry passion the flames began licking at their fragile flesh like starving dogs in a feeding frenzy, as each was heard to utter their memorable last words: "Oooucch OOww!!"

Bruno, being Italian, of course spoke his words with an Italian accent, saying, "Oouucha OOuucha!!", while the Maid of Orleans, speaking French spoke with a crisp French accent echoing, "Ooue', ooue'!!"
Especially look on formulas (52) that explain how light will move: its velocities along direction of motion and across it are changing.

Yuriy: if a light velocity "along the direction of motion changes", then this means the light speed will change to increase or decrease, there are no other options as a change in velocity "along the direction of motion" can only change of the speed changes, velocity being being a combined state of "speed" and "Direction". Is this what you really meant to say?

Believe it or not I am in the process of reading #6. Before I return to my lessons, were you referring to changes in velocity "across " the direction of motion being induced by an extermal force, or by some internal attribute of light itself, as in a form of natural "drift"? Your post is not entirlely clear on this issue.

Geistkiesel

Dear geistkiesel,
First of all, let me complement you: your last post is the best what I read from you in this Forum. Finally I found out that you can (I am absolutely serious, no offence or any attempt to make joke) express yourself in form when I understand each your thought. Finally…
And there goes my response.
1. Let start with “philological” part.
Once Voltaire wrote to his opponent: “Sir, I hate your point of view, but I am ready to give up my life for your right to express this your point of view”. Let me assure you for future: Voltaire always was my hero and I too am ready to give up my life for right of all of us to freely express our opinions.
But, in contrast to many people, I count that the Freedom of Speech without Responsibility for content of speech is the same Evil as the Absence of Freedom of Speech. When people, using the beauty of Freedom of Speech, are spreading a foolishness, especially in area of Science, it is my duty to use the same Freedom of Speech to urge listeners (especially enthusiasts of scientific knowledge) that they are listening a foolishness. You have a habit to spread BS, I have a habit to identify it as a BS. What is wrong with this usage of rights? ….
2. And my advice: stop using the analogies with Bruno, Galileo, Jeanne D’Arc and other great people. We are a lot more ordinary, and I am not Inquisitor… Be a little more modest… At least, I do not pretend to take your life, money or honor…
3. And now about the scientific part….
You wrote: “If a light velocity "along the direction of motion changes", then this means the light speed will change to increase or decrease, there are no other options as a change in velocity "along the direction of motion" can only change of the speed changes, velocity being being a combined state of "speed" and "Direction". Is this what you really meant to say?”
No, I said what I said, the all in your sentence, I just cited, is from you and is foolishness.
Beam of light has generally two independent components of its velocity: along direction of motion of the source of this beam, VL, and across this direction, VN. Speed of light, according its definition, is
Vs = (VL^2 + VN^2)^1/2.
The principle of Absoluteness of speed of light requires that Vs = c, not VN and/or VL. And exactly because of that VL and VN are not invariants but are changing at transit from one inertial reference frame to another inertial reference frame. Formulas (52) exactly describe this transformations of VL and VN. If you will apply these exact formulas o