You think that when both beams leave the emitter they are left behind in space since they are not traveling at c + v then we would detect the drift.
they both travel in both directions so they equal the same v. They travel in opposite directions twice the first path then the after the mirror path Hello.
No. You think that. Stop bringing up drift. There is no drift. You agree, I agree. No drift. The reason there is no drift is because there is no v. No v = no drift.
Because the one beam has a shorter path to travel than the other beam its in realtime motion. While the one beam going in the direction of travel has a longer path 1m + 0.767188mm to travel , the beam going in opposite a shorter path 1m - 0.767188mm Photon a travels 1m + 0.000767188m = 1.000767188m Photon b travels 1m - 0.000767188m = 0.999232812m Photons a speed is c + 230000m = 300022458m Photons b speed is c - 230000m = 299562458m Photon a travels the distance 1.000767188m / 300022458m = 3.3356409 20587351e-9ns Photon b travels the distance 0.999232812m / 299562458m = 3.3356409 83423898e-9ns thats what I get when calculated using the values from the OP. @ post #180
Which now brings me to time dilation via velocity and why its bogus. The faster traveling satellites clock measures a change in time because at a faster velocity the frequency doesn't change the distance between the source and emitter has changed via the velocity (or real time motion) or in other words it has a longer/shorter path to travel and you think its a change in frequency. in other words the distance between the source and emitter has a longer/shorter path to travel... Which is not a change in time at all... just more stupid stuff of course...
danshawen: Thanks. Are you going to go through what I wrote and answer the questions I asked you, or do you think you are done after posting a response that is largely a non sequitur? You mean Torrell rotation? You're not confusing the two, are you? No. Lots of expressions include the speed of light, but most of them aren't Lorentz invariants. In other words, merely having a "c" in an equation somewhere doesn't create an invariant. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Fine. Which rules of geometry do they follow? What are these angles, anyway? Please show me how you define and use them mathematically. Again, you've lost me. Please explain what you're talking about. Fine. So show me your simple math that works better. You can use TeX, right? You lost me again. Please explain what you're talking about. This is an assertion that you have not supported. Show me why your claim is true. Show me the maths. Two frames in relativity don't have a common origin. The whole point is that the origin of one frame moves with respect to the other one. Yay! We agree on something. I don't see the relevance of the uncertainty principle to Einstein's theory of relativity. Please explain. Consider a straight ruler, which I will call Ruler A. In frame 1, the ruler's rest frame, it is 1 metre long. You can imagine that the centimetres are also marked on it. In frame 2, the ruler A is seen to travel parallel to its length at a speed sufficient to give it a Lorentz factor of \(\gamma = 2\), let's say. In frame 2, when we hold up a second, identical ruler (stationary in frame 2) which I will call Ruler B and use it to measure the length of Ruler A as it flies past, we see that Ruler A is 0.5 metres long in frame 2. Suppose we measure the moving ruler at the single instant of time when the "zero" centimetre marks on our two rulers happen to be adjacent to one another, with the two rulers parallel of course. Then we see that the "100 cm" mark of ruler A coincides with the "50 cm" mark of ruler B. Similarly, we see that the "20 cm" mark of ruler A coincides to the "10 cm" mark of ruler B. And the "66 cm" mark of ruler A coincides with the "33 cm" mark on ruler B. And so on for any point you wish to consider. Now, you ask whether Ruler A contracted "with respect to the leading, trailing edge or its centre". Can you see that it didn't contract from any one point, but rather that its entire length contracted uniformly? Do you understand this point?
Sorry, the onus is on you, as the one putting forth an alternate theory - and the empirical evidence supporting it. It is not our job here to teach you basic physics. If you wish to refute the findings of SR, you need to do your homework.
I do understand current theory. Why do you think I can challenge it? You cant teach me anything. I have and presented it already. You're just not intellectually capable of comprehending it or rebutting it.
Keep dreaming in your little fictional world. What have you tried to teach me that nothing is moving, lol.
Why not then publish a paper and undergo appropriate peer review. Isn't it you that's occupying a little fictional world? I mean gee, you have nothing but unsupported words sentences and paragraphs supporting your stuff.
I just joined and commented on RJBeery's thread in Physics & Maths section. Scrolling down the board on main page I stopped at Alternative Theories section and decided to take a look at what sort of discussions were happening there. I saw this curious discussion and took a look. The discussion appears set on predetermined lines and based on all sorts of accepted or contested understandings flowing from earlier work and understandings. In particular, I googled the reference you made to Terrell rotation, and came across this in wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation It basically says (under Further Detail paragraph heading) that there has been a longstanding misconceptions regarding relativity effects because images due to light speed limitations were for a long time incorrectly treated in relativity discussions and explanations as real physical consequences as per the maths, even though the maths (which was correct in itself) did not actually predict such things as real effects but only existed as image based illusions from the light information forming an image at observer's light signal detector for the light emitted or reflected from the object being observed in motion with respect to observer. Because of this important but belated correction, I have to ask: does this long overdue correction to the misconceptions in the teaching texts assumptions, interpretations, explanations, analogies, models and conclusions, have any bearing on the issues being discussed in this thread since most of the positions and claims made by some here could be based on such early misconceptions about relativity maths and effects which has been only recently corrected? This thread is one I will follow even if I make no more comments on the discussion itself. Thanks for your time reading this, James R and danshawen.
