A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

Can you give any examples comparing your observed emotional "intensity" when I declared SRT dead with a link to mentally unstable zealotry?

Could you give two, three examples of experiments ha unambiguously verify SRT?

Can yoy provide examples of "crackpot" experimenters and what you term my "conviction" that SRT is dead?

Two photons emitted from a point in space define an invarianty straightline trajectory. The point of emission of the photons being impervious to physical manipulation, the photon motion being impervious to the motion of the source of the photons, all provide a perfect zero point for an inertial frame coordinate with absolute zero velocity. Is this what you mean by the "almost nothing" that I use to claim SRT is dead?

SRT and QM are unparalleled triumphs of human intuition and genius? This means that there are no other achievements of any human or humans that rise to the intuitive and genius level of SRT and QM, correct? No other achievements, correct?

You are familiar with delusional experimenters as your post claims. Can you give us an example of some of these experiments conducted by the delusional experimenters and what exactly makes them delusional?

OK, you got me on the "flat earther" thing. Using any earth based measuring device or system prove the earth is other than flat.

Of course you have unambiguous data proving the falsity of UFO abductees, do you not?

Why should I seek the counsel of the flat earthers and UFO abductees? It appears from your post that you deny the claims of both, bitterly deny the claims of both.

If I were to classify the emotioal content of a post as low medium or high I would put your post in the high catagory. What is particulary of interest is your fervent defense of a scientific theory, when the scientific reality of theories is none have ever survived in perpetuity. What makes SRT so unique. I didn't criticize your religion (did I?), your country, your mother, or even yourself. From my perspective I wasn't emotional about the death sentence to SRT, as this has been recognized by thousands as an inevitability, an obvious reality as an accomplished fact. Actually I am a Johnny come lately in this regard. It is only the theorists that maintain defense of their precious with such committment. I see no ground swell of public support for SRT, do you?

You engage yourself in this forum for entertainment purposes, only? You seem rather involved in a petty sort of way for the mere entertainment of it all. You do, and did, anticipate the confrontations that are so apparent in the exchanges of posts re SRT I am sure. It is my observation that you enjoy the elevated emotional rush of all the confrontations. Am I correct? Well at least it is legal what you are doing.

Are you attempting to make being an "intellectual drunkard" a bad thing? Shame on you.

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your entire post is jibberish.

The two main postulates of SRT:

1. The Principle of Relativity
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. The Constancy of Speed of Light in Vacuum
The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

a) Everything flows from this.

b) At least I admit to being a non-professional. Go on attack that some more.

c) I am sick of having to re-present links to lists of scientific papers regarding extensive tests of SRT. See previous posts.

"The only thing proven is the gamma function" - See c)


Geistkiesel:

Oh...My...God. I think your mind is so open that your brains have spilled out.

MacM, you should help your friend here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes and what flows is brown and smells. There is simply no basis to take 1 & 2 and come to the conclusions that SRT does. There are other interpretations which fit observation and test data far better than SRT.

I haven't attacked you are.

Perhaps others are sick of having to explain that once again you have failed to address the issue. You have shown nothing that disputes the fact that the only data we have is one sided gamma functions and not the SRT Relativity synopsis of relative velocity where either may declare themselves as being at rest. All test data only involves one velocity component.

The fact is if you assume SRT as valid then we should see no result systemically since both clocks must slow equally in the same test time frame since each are valid views concurrently. Otherwise you do not have relative motion.

I will not advance your attacks in kind. But you have shown your incapacity to think for yourself and are merely parroting the party line of Relativists without addressing the issues at hand. That is you are assuming when a paper says GPS uses SR and proves SR that the statement is true when in fact it is blatantly untrue and can be easily proven so. GPS only proves the gamma function, not SRT.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Both MacM and Geistkiesel. Get serious.

1) Present your findings to several peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, Phys Review D, etc.

2) Get them published in said journals.

3) Have your results reproduced and predictions confirmed by well known indepent labs.

Why haven't you done this? I would like to read a simpler version (so even I can understand it) of your successful theories in Scientific American.

Thank you.

 

The fact is you make an excellent point that is recognized.. I am infact currently involved in getting a professinally prepared paepr on the subject to mimic Dragnet's "The facts mame, just the facts". that is get to the core and support the presentation with mathematics.

I am hopeful that will happen this year. It remains to be seen if it gets published in desired journals however. But I think properly done it will.

 

Superluminal,
I see from you exchanges with MacM that a rational thinking entity resides in yon orb upon your shoulders. Your somewhat colored description of my involvement here was relatively tame compared to some responses macM receives. MacM however, has the thickest skin of all. This proabbly stems from spending too much time in Texas remembering the Alamo and 'neeth broiling heat of Panama.

Your perceptive ovservation of my own intellectual drunkenness was quite a feat. Icannot be excused fro this. In a meager defense I do try, I try very very hard, to consume nothing but the absolute best of this planet's brain oil.

WEe all share the weakness of pointing to nonscientific sources as proof or disproof of what we are communcating. This science business has always been a hot bed of discourse, argument, toil and trouble and oh blah dee blah da, life goes on.

Getting to the specifics of the matter let me describe again a system that looks intuitive and rational to me and to some who neverheless have rejected the description asa an acurate perception of Mother Natures ways on theoretical grounds. If you assume I am as knowledgeable as yourself in SRT (though I may have to spend some energy in researh of any particlular topic) I suggesgt a course of conduct that minimizes noise, the chatter, to an absolute minimum. Is it unfair to ask of a reviewer to respond with a clear "why it doesn't work" statement, and to demonstrate proof by using more than theory alone. To state something like the, "impossibility of measuring or detecting motion of uniformly moving inertial frames in free s0pace" is understood, but absence demonstrative proof, the statement is conclusory only. This is essential to this post as a mode of thinking. I do not intend to disarm you nor to limit your manner of response or that content. I merely wanted you to be aware that if you want a surrender from me, (manifest in etyernal silence) and I am capable of just that, you must convince me with the proof in phyiscal terms.

Having said that let me be as spartan as I am able in describing an inertial sytem:

Two photons are emitted from a point in space located midway between photon sensitve synchronized clocks that provide an immediate printout of the arrival times of photons at the extreme ends of a rigid frame. The physical midpoint of the frame also has an identical clock. The point in space where the photons are emitted is considered a zero point along the line (trajectory) of the photons moving in opposite directions. The line is hypothetically marked at each 1000 clock ticks from the midpoint of the emissions. When the three clocks are stationary wrt the emssion point of the photons the photons arrive at the Left and Right (L and R) clocks simultaneously. If the clocks are moving to the right at velocity v wrt the zero point when the photons are emitted the L clock registers arrival of a photon before R registers an arrival of photons.So goes the hypothesis and topic of this thread. The photon speed is not functionally an intrinsio attribute of the coordinate system

Consider the midpoint of the emission an abstract point impervious to any forces external to the system. [An abstraction cannot be affected by any physical or nonphysical forces, correct?] ALso, observations of the dynamics has no affect on the physics of the results - watching a beautiful western sunset neither speeds up nor inhibits the motion of the earth-sun system giving rise to the existence of the sunset. Observers are required only to satisfy the "beauty" attribute of the sunset event.

The only question is, do the photons arrive at L and R at the same indicated time when v > 0 wrt the 0 point?

If the arrival times are simultaneous at L and R then the system as described is capable of measuring absolute velocity, otherwise it is not.

Sooner or later I will be saying that the postulate of light that states: "the motion of the photons is independent of the motion of the source of the photons." I take this to mean strictly what it says.

If, for instant, as in the Michelson Morley experiments, the light moving orthogonally to the frame motion is said to be "carried along" by the motion of the frame when reflected at the mirror. From this the light pulse is reflecting off the mirror at an angle in the direction of motion of the frame. If the postulate is true, say I, then the photon should be relflected up and back along the original downward trajectory. If this is the case then the photons will arrive at the eyepiece in parallel trajectories, separated by the distance the frame has moved during the travel time of the reflected photons.

MM originally and to this day was not a measure of the speed of light.

Calculate distance traveled by the frame for a 100 m total optical path length.
Assuming a forward frame motion of 30 km/sec and an optical path length of 100 meters (Dayton Miller had 64m in his MM improved model) the round trip of the photon would take approximately, 100m/(3 x 10^8 m/sec) = 33 x 10^-8 sec. The frame moving at 30 km/sec in the sun orbit moves therefore, 30 km/sec x 33 x 10^-8 sec. This is shortened to 100 x 10^-8 km = 10^-6 km = 10^-3 m = 1 mm (or so).

Ethan Skyler, suggests that air may have been the culprit that altered the MM results. Myself, I see a simpler and more probable reason (at least one reason). When calibarating the interferometer the expeimenters must generate a fringe pattern. This is done by careful and delicate manipulation of the mirrors that may have involved onley one crucial mirror that effectively "aimed" the reflecting light in the forward direction [of motion], which doesn't negate the experiment. It surely throws in ambiguity though.

I am definitely not arguing MM results here. I am only pointing out the parameters of the problem which I am sure you are more than peripherally aware. There is some geometrical issues intrinsic to the MM results that need definitive clarification, but nor here.

All the light motion in the hypothetical here is parallel to any frame "motion". There are no geometrical questions of varying direction of the light in the current hypothetical.

The release cord to the guillotine is now in your trusted hands Superluminal. I don't know who is laying there stupid enough to be sticking his or her neck beneath the blade, but then we all have our mission in life, self styled or appointed, don't we? Who am I to criticize the motives of another?

Geistkiesel

 

Beautiful! I just plain love that statement! Can't wait for an opportunity to use it somewhere. Thanks!

To the point (and hopefully I don't miss too badly):

1) If you accept that the speed of light is seen to be the same for all observers no matter their state of motion (a basic SRT postulate) then you just have to accept that simultenaeity is relative, no matter how f***** up that sounds. And no amount of intuition will help you. I have read SRT scientists who admit this: there is simply no physical intuition that will help you. It's like trying to visualize what a hypercube "really" looks like. Can't be done. You know I am in this camp. I am OK with certain aspects of nature being beyond my intuitive grasp. MM experiments, high-speed pion decay/photon emission experiments, etc. convince me that this is indeed the case.

2) If you see other experiments that convince you that there is an absolute nature to movement in the universe, i.e. there is a "Frame 0", then SRT will be useless to you.

3) I will need to see peer-revieved, repeatable, rigorous experimental proof that SRT fails in this respect, and that the universe is better explained with priveleged frames of reference.

 

HeHe. Curious, how do you know I once lived in Panama?

 

Superluminal,
If we use the hypothetical here we can see a direct parallel with the example used by Einstein in his book "Relativity". Two photons are released just as the midpoint of the moving frame arrives at the midpoint of the emitted photons. AE assuming, like a proper SRTist, the train is at rest concludes that the forward light detected first must have been emitted first if the photons were eimitted from sources equidistant from the midpoint of the [moving] frame. Rememebr, the frame is assumed at rest. Everybody else sees the frame moving into the on coming light and away from the photon approaching from the rear. Simulataneity hasn't been afected but the definitioon of simultaneity has been thoroughly corrupted.

To stop the discussion here would negate the ability of the moving observer to consider another possibility: That the train is moving with respect to the stationary frame from where the photons originated. However, even if the photon sources were attached to the frame and emitted at the same instant the photons were emitted from the stationary source the moving observer would measure the same as when the source was attached to the embankment.

ALso, the observer, unable to detect motion of the train (an extremely unlikey possibility. In an enclosed space ship maybe) could speculate that his motion wrt the frame, while zero, says nothing about the possibile motion of the frame. After all, all the human observer's senses are dulled by the conditions of these kinds of experiments.

Lets us back up a tad into our hypothetical. I read no objection of the hypothetical marking of the photon trajectory along the inferred coordinate line. And very importatnt Superluminal, the frame defined by the invariant position of the point of emission of the photons makes no use of the speed of light, only the fact of the invariant position of line and emission point is relevant for definition of the coordinate frame, for the L and R computers. One way I interpret the claims that the SOL is alweays measured as C in all reference frames means that there is no physical meaning to the statement that a train moving 100 km/hr wrt embankment is moving 3x10^5 km/sec - 100 km/hr slower than the SOL. When I say that L is moving along the coordinate axis with a velocity v = 10 km/hr wrt the invariant position of the emission point, and the photon is moving toward the on coming L at velocity C also wrt the emission point, all consistent with emasuremnt s=wrt the cacuum, I have not violated the postulate that the SOL will always measure C in all reference frames.
. The photon knows nothing of the frame or the computers.

Lets us diverge slightly from using light in the measurement.

Two inertial frames are about to move past each other where each sees the other approaching from the left to right direction. At first look neither observer knows the other's absolute velocity (measured commonly with respect to the e4arth frame) nor his own, but the total can be measured, say a relative velocity of 1000 speed units.

At some time the frames A and B release golf balls perpendicular to the observed relative motion such as to intercept the otther ship. Assume also a flat strip of "sand paper" on each of the ships. If A is not moving as is one of the A observer's options to consider, the golf balls will strike the B frame and all golf balls will be deflected to the A right, if A is truly at rest. The same will be observed by the B frame if the B frame were at absolute rest. Let us assume the ships both originated from earth and each had its velocity measured wrt the earth, where A was moving at 400 units and B at 600 units (hence the 1000 unit measured relative velocity). Now both A and B obsevers will observe a bias to the angle of deflection favoring the B frame motion.

The conservation of momentum makes this example trivially simple. How can the conclusion be otherwise? When you say the speed of light is always measured as C in all frames this example has nothing to do with the SOL, or SRT as the results will be identical at all velocities.

For the case of space ships originating from earth after a known accelration and known velocity wrt earth and no decelerations are recorded on either ship (imperceptible acclerations only were necessaary to align the collision trajectory of the frames) and A was origianlaly moving at 400 and B at 600 and neither knew of his own or the other's velocity measurement wrt earth. Does it not seem intuitive that the relative motion of 1000 was in fact made up of those absolute velocities measured wrt the earth frame?

If you were moving at 600 and I at 400 and we made an SRT analysis with one or both of us assuming a condition of rest wrt the other, then what would occur?

The 400 and 600 units velocities would turn into 0 or 1000 units whatever teh needs of each frame happens to be,

What would the result be if you and I both took the average of the relative velocty? I would average at 500 units, a mere 100 units off the measured velocity, you likewise would be 100 units off the measured absloute velocity.
If I assumed a state of rest for my frame my calculation would be in error by 400 units, your error would be 600 uints. Again, we aren't invoking any SRT inmperatives are we? What is the more practical system? Aftyer all we both measure velocty wrt a common frame. What of the possibility that all that observed around us was moving and we had no other universe to compare velocity with? Asbslutley nothing and who would give a rats ass?


I am not sorry, though I used to be siorry, to say that I do not accept the constancy of the speed of light as defined by SRT. The hypothetical defined in this phase of the thread is as valid as any AE or other of the founding SRTist speculated regarding their take on the SOL.

You were correct to point to an emotional context of my post that motivated you to write as you did. What got my goat was the statement similar to the one you just responded: that is waiting to see what a peer revier analysis would provide instead of making the decision based on your own observation of the four corners of the documents and matters you are considering at the present. Unless you can establish the unambiguous validity on the assumption that peer rviewed papers are more accurate a reflection of the laws opf physics that unrreviewed papers I am going to excise that remark from consideration as useful scientific input.

I see the instincts inviolved and even the higher order propriety, theoretically speaking, of the reviewed process.

Could you at this moment give an unbiased and fair assesment of SRT arguments taken in context antithetical with the cuirrent hypothetical theory, or of MacM's arguments for another example? I am asking can you be fair? Could Yuriybwe fair, as you recognize his input? YoUy have already inferred Yuriy as an expert in SRT and I would not take that from your assesment or from Yuriy. If that is what you observe so be it. Yopu have infererred your lack of expertise and have put yourself in the thick of battllelas an innocent seeking only the truth, nothing derrogatory implied or intended, but you know what I mean I trust.

So just be fair, because you will never see the above published in Phys Rev with the proper peer review committee giving its close scrutiny. If so it wongt be my name on the paper. This I can assure you.

Would you allow publication such as that hypothetically described here and similarly from others of which you have deen conversing with? We will not accept a modest disclaimer of lack of expertise, after all if you are the student how will you know when the truth comes floating by? I say you have the fairness required in your heart, which is half the story. The other half is the hard work of scrutinizing the various claims and counter claims and coming to a conslusion what ever that is and whatever the stress it places on you to see an honest man when you loomk at yourself in the mirror.

Final question again: Can you be fair?.
Geistkiesel

 

I have my sources He He. I checked you out, thoroughly.

Geistkiesel

 

Geistkiesel,

I find it very difficult to respond to so much content in a single post. If there are a number of questions or points you are tyring to make, could you please post them in smaller chunks so the orb on my shoulders can handle them.

Humbly,

SL

 

I posted this link before when asked for evidence of one-way isotropy:

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

Specifically this section:

So, the observer on his ship will see the photons arrive simultaneously and his clocks will show this. SR predicts it, evidence shows it. Done.

 

Not entirely. You have yet to show even ONE case of relative velocity mutual time dilation. If you don't understand these terms I'll spell it out for you.

SRT uses the Lorentz Gamma function. The gamma function is supported by numerous test results; however, SRT also mandates that either observer (clock) in relative motion can be assumed to be at rest. In which case it is the opposing clock that dilates.

Please show us ONE case where the assumption of the observer at rest was changed and the clock that dilated changed.

 

I'll get back to you.

 

First, my interpretation of the theoretical foundation underlying what I see to be a profound misunderstanding of what the words "relative", "rest", and "observer" mean in the above quote, especially the red part:

1) I start on earth with my clock sync'ed to yours.

2) I fly away in a ship at 0.5c. The clock ticks that I transmit to you seem slow to you. My clocks are slowing.

3) The clock ticks you transmit to me seem slow to me. Your clocks are slowing.

4) I return to earth and we see that my clocks have lost time.

Ok.

Repeat steps 1 thru 3

5) Now, if I accelerated the earth up to 0.5c, we woud see our clock ticks again in sync. The earth clocks will be ahead of the ship clocks since the ship has been travelling at 0.5c for a longer time. But we could re-sync our clocks at this point.

6) If I now accelerate the earth to 0.9c, in order to catch up to you, we have the same situation as in 2) and 3).

7) When I decelerate the earth to 0.5c and rendezvous with the ship, we will see that the earths clocks have lost time.

So, the one who actually adds speed (energy) to their frame, relative to an arbitrary starting frame, is the one who's clocks have lost time upon returning to the arbitrary starting frame.

Is there an experiment that directly shows this? Don't know.

Rip it to shreds. Talk to yall tomorrow.

 

You are attempting to replace one gamma scenario with a second gamma scenario.

Stick with your first case. Both views are concurremt. There is relative velocity between clocks. Each see the other run slow (in theory), now show any physical clocks that support both views.

As you said the spaceship clock will be dilated but not the earth clock. The spaceships view per SRT is invalidated since the earth clock did not infact dilate.

You have only proven a case of gamma where the spaceship had higher velocity than the earth clock. Nothing more.

In your second scenario you are setting up another condition where the earth clock has the higher veloicty hence it will show dilation but the spaceship clock will not support the earth's view of it.

Both scenarios involve one way higher velocity. SRT claims that in any given case "physically" that either view is valid. It is not. It is ALWAYS only one clock that dilates which means one has a higher velocity than the other and that is not a "Relative Velocity" view. It is an "Absolute" velocity view.

 

MacM,
Both crews of a two ship Va and Vb inertial system lost or forgot the exact numbers of their original measured velocity wrt Ve, as they accelerated away from earth. Later each crew measured Vab = 20000 units relative velocity of the two ship system. Each crew suspected their measured velocity as approximately 10000 >= Va and Vb >= 8000 units as originally meaured wrt Ve , but time and lost data effectively destroyed the accurate meauements wrt Ve.

Is there any practical reason you are aware of that would make is impractical for both shipd to simply take the average of their relative velocity as their absolute velocity wrt each other and assign 10000 absolute units to themselves and the other ship?

If both made standard SRT calculations and both assumed themselves at relative rest wrt the other in one calculation and then each assumed the other at rest and themselves moving at 20000 units relative to the other. In other words the only numbers the SRT calculation would produce would be 0, or 20000 units alternatively for Va and Vb.

Do you see any utility of either ship using the SRT calculations for any purpose assuming the confidence level of the average value calculated was 99% that each ship's absolute velocity errors Vber and Baer < |2000| unts for each Va and Vb?

Do you see any value in thsi post?

Geistkiesel
Geistkiesel
each had a

 

Yes, I see a problem but if they were truely lost then taking the average is about as good as they can do until measuring absolute motion is proven technology.

Except that if they have communications with each other and are not so lost that they could establish an accurate calculation by selecting a common referance point and each measure their veloicty relative to it and from there determine their component parts of the total relative velocity.

That is another tough question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please read my post carefully. The whole thing is important. Both clocks "dilate" according to each observer while the delta V between the observers is 0.5c. Only when one or the other returns to 0c relative, will there be a resolution of whose clock slowed!

 

Absolutely and that shows that only one clock dilated which shows the physical process violates the claims of SRT. The issue is actual physical time dilation, not a perception.

I have openly stated one can perhaps get an illusion due to motion but that is not reality. The only physical reality is the clock readings themselves.