A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

MacM,

There is ample evidence that UFO's are visiting our planet and it is known that the government is covering it up.

There is ample evidence that the God of Abraham is the One True God. All other religions are failing to consider all the facts.

There is ample evidence that SRT is an invalid concept and it is well known that establishment scientists are hiding the fact to preserve their preeminent positions.

MacM. Do you seriously believe that SRT is obviously and horribly flawed? So much so that us dabblers can see it clearly? I work daily with infrared lasers that communicate across kilometers of space. I have embedded range detection circuitry in some of the data-path gate arrays (works very nicely) with almost 1ns timing accuracy. Please describe an experiment I could easily do to disprove a fundamental calim of SRT.

PS: Sorry if I over-assumed the intentions and motivations of others.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just what about E. Skyler's findings did you not understand? Iight does not actually behave in the manner Relativity and you have just described!!!!

When you hit the button and fire your laser it would make a straight line from point of emission to its pointed vector target at that instant. It does not make the longer path you speak of and follow you down the path.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Down to here is outright BS.

Absolutely.

Read E. Skylers experiments.

Not just others but myself included. I am interested only in the truth as we can best understand it. We can and must do better than we currently are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read em. Find them to be nonsense. Right up front he considers an "air factor" to be a problem with MM interferometry. Please go here and search for "vacuum" on the page. Two-way and one-way vacuum interferometry tests for the anisotropy of light have yeilded null results (no "frame 0").

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#round-trip tests

 

Also scanned your link and find it mostly hype based on a one sided view point. That is they do not address reciprocity issues at all. Everything they discuss are in the domain of Gamma function and not SRT perse.

Now as to your rejection of Skyler, it is not based on the issue in question. You have not addressed the fact that the laser spot tracks a course around a target which mathematically computes as earth's velocity. This has been repeated numerous time over 4 years.

That is the only issue here, not his opinion regarding MM or any other subject. He may well be absolutely right about his laser test data but completely in left field about any number of other issues. To reject his laser data on such basis is simply looking for an out so as to not consider the implications of the data.

 

MacM, et al,

Ok. As a non-physicist, I will not consider the results of any non-peer-reviewed, fringe scientists or amateurs. On any subject. Period. Life is short and my time is somewhat valuable to me. The web provides an open forum on which the results of anyone can be posted and reviewed. If there is merit in Skyler's findings, surely one of the thousands of physics PhD candidates out there, during their search for a thesis, will see some value in E. Skylers findings and expand upon them, possibly successfully, and earn him/herself a Nobel. I like excitement and think that would be neat. However, all I can do here is hunt on the web for examples and counterexamples of SRT research in a neverending debate about the validity of SRT. Not going to happen.

Now, who wants to talk about something really cool - Nuclear propulsion systems. I think I'm going to start a new thread.

 

Geistkeisel,

I repeat what i said already. The velocity(s) you take into account has no significance in this setup. It does not alter the distance between clocks, midpoint emitter. It is not going to affect the printouts of the clocks in question.

A simple explanation :

If you say the whole setup is moving with velocity v1 with respect to a stationary lab (RF1) at earth,

i will say yes,

i will also say that the whole seltup is also moving with velocity v2 with respect to planet X (RF2).

Both are valid observations. The fact is these 2 different velocities have no bearing on the final printouts of the clocks when the photons hits them. A clock cannot show 2 different reading at the same time because of 2 different velocities at the same time, right? The clock readings are same as when the whole setup was resting at the lab.

Simply, the whole setup when moving :

v = v1 wrt RF1; and v=v2 wrt RF2 at the same time. That is, it moves with 2 different velocities with respect to 2 diffenrent RFs at the same time. Simply, it can have any number of velocities relative to any number of RFs at the same time. The final printout is not affected by this fact & it is no different than when it was at lab where v=0 wrt lab.

 

To all readers:
I read all 12 "Articles" of E. Skylers web site that was provided by MacM.
My professional opinion is that there is nothing that we call "science": some collection situation, taken out context; absolutely meaningless nova-terminology and nova-notions; no one scientific analysis of any physical theory; no calculations except some arbitrary arithmetic in Article XXII; absolutely non-supported accusations of well-established physical theories; and so on... Shortly speaking - the best example of "50's Clubs" where from MacM brings on his "new evidences" of failure of SRT...
So called "E. Skyler's experiment" is some tell which we should take like testimony of ... divine miracle: no description of any verified conditions that could be a source of the claimed results, any data, any photos, any support by independent experimenters... In other words, any support by evidences that make difference between ... swears of seen Snow Man and ... Snow Man itself.
Just as we had already in this Forum many times, we will be involved in a new discussion with the same result: MacM will wipe his face and forgetting everything will start ... pulling out of "50's Club" a new "superevidence of failure of SRT"...
The parade of Stupidity is continuing on our Forum!

 

On the one hand your reply makes sense. You are admitting you lack sufficient knowledge to determine for yourslef the merits of something and must rely upon professional opinions. that is an acceptable position on the other hand you close by wanting to talk nuclear which you also don't seem to know anything about as well. :bugeye:

Go ahead a start a thread. Since I have had nuclear engineering maybe I'll participate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Seems Yuriy has the same standard as Superluminal. If he sees something he doesn't like then the whole issue is dead. I suggest that the test is described well enough and perfomed enough times that it doesn't matter that Mr. E. Skyler happens to be in heavy equipment construction and not a physicist full of pages of mathematics to Yuriy's satisfaction. The results of his test are amply described that any knowledgable person can make a judgement (it does however still need to be replicated to stand as fact).

Beyond that Yuriy in his unfortunate manner has posted typical BS.

PS: Don't hold your breath waiting on a physicist to run a verification check on this data. It won't happen.

 

Super, read your thread. You trust in "best wisdom", but how do you know which is best? Did you vote because "liked the candidate?" You keep claiming nonprofessional status and use this to lean on when takliong th eparty line. Do you realize that this thread alone expses a major flawe in SRT? But how would you know? Th enly ones I see "prying" into every concevable crack are some people on this forum. You have called some of my posts at undertsndable and intuitively obvious yet you cling to something you by admissuion do not understand? What a4re you so afraind of that you are unable to stretch the mind a bit and see where the light will strike the L and R clocks in thwe moving vframe at different times, which demonstrates the concept of absolute motion, absolute velopcity. i.e SRT is dead,


Now you say you want to spend your trimje learning how th euniverse l]reallhy works, yet you have selected a theoretical construct you do bnot understand, by your admission. You lower tyour estimation of your own intellect, bnit by any proven deffect in your intellect, but that those out there are smarter than you and have apready settled matters.

Your problem Superuminal is emental laziness. It is easier to merely accept dogmatic mainstream crap that dig down deep and dirty and finde out for yourself what truth is. Yiour instincts are to accept the dogma of others, and in that way you upset no one and you maintain a feel goodness about yourself deluded belief that you understand the truith. Also, there are the cocktail parties that you can impress others with your knowledge of SRT. I bet you have heard on more than onee occasopm that you rmust be really smart be involved in SRT forums. go into SRT.

Now you want me to lead you down another garden path od quantum physics which you are going to confess more less than profesional knowledge about.
The words you used regarding the less than intuitive two hole diffraction are larned words. You let your teachers or who you thought knew what they were talking about make a robot out of you.

If you were me would you spend much time with a person with your attitude? I mean the attitude of arbitrary acceptance of malundetstood physical theories? I engage in these discussions because I have a really good time starting deluges in mental states that the owners thereof thought were impervious to variance. from accepted dogma,

What is all this to you, entertainment?

Geistkiesel

 

Wouh...
Now we will be witnesing the descriptions of the personal features not of Yuriy, but someone else!
Aha, superluminal, he got you! Now you will understand how to argue with him ... on the scientific matter!

 

You would mean of course claiming a poster lacked education when they in fact have substantial education. That is a scientific response in your view I see.

[post=759476]Reference[/post] your post.

 

you are absolutely correct.

No Everneo, I didn't say that. Did you read the post you are responding to here? I said that the phtons and the three clocks, L, Midpoint and R aare synchronized and photon sensitive. Are you making up the velocities you just mentioned. If you are interested in continuing with the discussion you must rfespond to what I posted, other wise we are engaghing in chicken babble.

WHat are the velocities you are dioscussiong? Please read the post again, at lest the part where I define a referfence from which a velocioty can be measured,. You mentioned not one word of this. Are4 you just trying to hgfet me to run kin circels? Are you trying to insinuate to other readers that I have been talklking like you have been responding here?

I do no mean to burn bridges evrneo, but if you cannot kindicate to nme the fact of freading whta you are apparently responding to themI am not going to respond further, it is somply suekless to proceed do yoxxxxu not agree?

We are focusing in the relative motion of the frame and photons, not venus or th earth. get on the same page with me ok? And read the post you are responfing to.

Are you denying motion? If you saw the stationary experiment in the rest frame, then observed a moving frame experiment, moving wrt the rest frame. Jee you would see the photons arrive at different times at L and R would you not?

Then you get on the moving frame and watch what you had just witnessed from the moving frame. Now as the clockL is moving wrt the colliding photon and R is moving ffrom gthe right moving photon. L and the left moving photon are moving at a relative velocity of C + V, the R and right photon move at C - V. What is V? LIke you say velocity is not significant here so let us do this. The photons are emitted from a point in space that is initially colocated with the midpoint of the frame, but the frame is moving and leaves the emission point behind, which point is merfely an abstraction and therefore not affected by any physical condition conceivable. We map out an abstract line using a mark every 1000 clock ticks of the any of the clocks, Therefore when I say the clocks move I mean they move wrt the 1000 clock tick marks hypothetically laid out along the trajectory of the photon's invariant straight line motion.

Do you see?

Do you see that Yuriy has agreed that the photons arrive at different times at L and R in the moving frame? Did you express your disagreement with YuriY?

You stated above that the photons would arrive at L and R simnultaneously in the moving frame and that the photons if then reflected back to the midpoint would arrive there simultaneously. Niow if this is the case you and Einstein just bumped heads, This is the gedanken plusblished in Einsteinb's book "Relativity", where he reecognizes that the photon from the fornt would arrive at the midpoint before the photon arrived from the rear at the midpoint because it had a shorter distabnce to travek because the frame was moiving. Eisbntein was making relative velocity measurements with respect to the motion of the photon all hypocritically in violation of the equivalence and cpostulates. This is identical to the famous gedanken AE used in which he trashed simultaneity concepts. When photons are emitted toward trhe midpoint of the sources located on the moving frame, the photon relfected frionm the front is detected by the emidpoint c;ock before the photon fromj the rear arrives at the midpoint.
Go quarrel with AE in chapter IX "Relativity" then get back to me.

Geistkiesel

locatated

 

Caveat Emptor: The scientific content of this post is nil, nada, none.It is cynical, belittling, insulting, pompous and a distraction. James R kick this fool off the forum if he is unable to at least pretend to be scientific.


Geistkiesel

 

Geistkiesel,

Part I

I gave you a simple explanation. Instead of commenting on it, on its own merit, you disagreed with that outright. Its my turn to ask you the questions. Why don't you counter what i posted. If you object to the term 'you' i modify it & repost again :

A simple explanation :

If the whole setup is moving with velocity v1 with respect to a stationary lab (RF1) at earth (OR an arbitrary point in the space)

i will say yes,

i will also say that the whole seltup is also moving with velocity v2 with respect to planet X (RF2).

Both are valid observations. The fact is these 2 different velocities have no bearing on the final printouts of the clocks when the photons hits them. A clock cannot show 2 different reading at the same time because of 2 different velocities at the same time, right? The clock readings are same as when the whole setup was resting at the lab.

Simply, the whole setup when moving :

v = v1 wrt RF1; and v=v2 wrt RF2 at the same time. That is, it moves with 2 different velocities with respect to 2 diffenrent RFs at the same time. Simply, it can have any number of velocities relative to any number of RFs at the same time. The final printout is not affected by this fact & it is no different than when it was at lab where v=0 wrt lab.


Part II

I take what you posted :

OK

OK

OK

I don't get you. It seems dubious and circular to me. Care to elaborate.

 

No objection I just misread the essence of your post. The diffeent eferebnce frames earth , venus, are imaterial to the question at hand. But what you agreed to u tot ghe last line does provide a refence point that is unambiguously at an absolute velocity = 0. I kniow heresy, but see the below and the link that describes he abalysis using onkly the times associated with teh clocks on the moving frame.

A simple explanation :

If the whole setup is moving with velocity v1 with respect to a stationary lab (RF1) at earth (OR an arbitrary point in the space)

i will say yes,

i will also say that the whole seltup is also moving with velocity v2 with respect to planet X (RF2).

Both are valid observations. The fact is these 2 different velocities have no bearing on the final printouts of the clocks when the photons hits them. A clock cannot show 2 different reading at the same time because of 2 different velocities at the same time, right? The clock readings are same as when the whole setup was resting at the lab.

Simply, the whole setup when moving :

v = v1 wrt RF1; and v=v2 wrt RF2 at the same time. That is, it moves with 2 different velocities with respect to 2 diffenrent RFs at the same time. Simply, it can have any number of velocities relative to any number of RFs at the same time. The final printout is not affected by this fact & it is no different than when it was at lab where v=0 wrt lab.[/quote]

I agree that the earth and venus frames of reference are insignificant to the problem at hand, or can be considered as insignificant.
Part II

I take what you posted :


OK

OK

OK

I don't get you. It seems dubious and circular to me. Care to elaborate.[/QUOTE]
here is a link/attachment I created in December, take a look. The link describes ou hypohetical plus some more.
The hypothetical in this thread could be the first half of Einsteins gedanken in his book "Relativity" which he uses as a description of the loss of simultaneity, using a train/embankment scenario. The train is at the midpoint of photon source L and R just as the photons are emitted. This is the second half of the hypothetical here which get the photons to the mirrors at the same time only when the frame is stationary.

Absolute frame device



When the train is moving the photons arrive nonsequentially due to the train motion (which should be a consideration of the observers on the train, but is ignored in SRT constyruction). The train observer that considers himself at rest concludes the photons were emitted at different times, i.e the forward photon is emitted first because it arrived at the train (considered at rest at the midpoint of the sources of the phoons) first. Hence, says AE no moe simultaneity.

The problem can be analyzed without the SRT implications. See the attachment.

Also, Everneo, consider the simple statement that "the observer is stationary wrt his frame of reference, but this does not necessarily justify his assumption that the frame is not moving." The SRT industry always inserts the condition that the moving observer is ignorant of his motion and ignores other considerations the observer may make.

If the obsver goes to school or observes the experiment when at rest wrt the embankment, then he can make the educated assertion that he is either at rest or moving and then he is able to resolve the different results due to a parameter of the experiment that has varied and that distnguishes the two cases. The reference frames may be "equivalent", for some purposes but not when you consider that in one the frame is moving, one is stationary.

The postulate of the measurement of the speed of light being constant cannot be claimed to pertain to the hypothetical here as we aren't comparing frame and photon velocity, nor are we inserting some preferred stellar object as a frame of reference. We are considering frame velocity wrt the invariant position of the emitted photon trajectory which is spatially invariant with an absolute spatial velocity v = 0. V = 0 wrt what? With respect to no material object. We rely on the invariant physical nature of the emitted photons only.

Geistkiesel.

 

Everneo, Here is a simple, an almost trivial example of measuing the absolute velocity of inertial frames from the measured relative velocity of the two inertial frames. I wouldn't want you to think this was a one example thread.


Here is one page with figures showing detected absolute velocity of iertial frames.
You will have to use the expand button.
Geistkiesel

 

Of course it's entertainment you idiot! The emotional intensity you demonstrate wrt SRT being "dead!" is almost always indicitave of a mentally unstable zealot. You are completely irrational and, I suspect, unable to make sound judgements regarding any scientific theory. SRT is dead?!?!? Because of a few crackpot experimenters and your conviction that absolute motion is a fact as demonstrated by the example given here? What about the thousands of experiments of all types, done over decades, that verify SRT. SRT (along with quantum mechanics) are unparalleled triumphs of human intuition and genius. And you toss SRT off as dead based on almost nothing.

You will never accept that within the moving frame the two photons will be measured to arrive simultaneously. The Earth is a moving frame and there is no indication of absolute motion whatsoever, no matter what delusional experimenters think they have found. You should seek the counsel of "Flat Earthers" and UFO Abductees. And before anyone complains about this post, please read geistkiesels posts to me.

Cocktail parties my ass. Bite me you intellectual drunkard.

Mods: This thread should be moved to Pseudoscience.

 

Name one (1) that is not actually based on a one sided absolute velocity.

Let me put it in more clear terms. Name one test where the reciprocity mandated by SRT is demonstrated. That is show me that changing observer views as to who is at rest reverses the accumulated time on clocks.

I think for an admitted non-professinal you talk to much like you think you know something which you clearly do not. Prove me wrong. Give us an example of the duality described (mandated) by SRT relative motion where either or both are considerred as being at rest. Go ahead. We are waiting.

Perhaps it is time you come to realize that the only thing demonstrated thus far is the Gamma function, not SRT. The only data to date shows one observer having a greater velocity than the other. That is an "Absolute" relative velocity. If you don't understand the term "absolute realtive" it means it is not reversable. You cannot claim the other as being at rest and reverse the physical affect claimed or demonstrated.

There is a differance you know in physical test data and thought experiments based on nothing but mathematics and assumptions.

At least you give him credit for being intellectual. I'm not sure at this point how we should view you.

How is it that a non-scientist can determine what is pseudo-science?. LOL.

Lighten up for christ sake. You want to jump on the band wagon and taut the dogma it is your perogative. It is our (Crackpots) perogative to continue to show that you and they are not so absolute in being the holders of truth.