Of course not. But I was hoping that you were actually interested in discussing how things really work... That's an interesting insight into the way you approach a discussion, CANGAS. Do you always decide what you believe, then stick to it regardless of new information? Bullshit. Perception of light by an observer is used extensively in relativity exercises as the fastest possible means of gathering information, but it is not "the fundamental principle". It also doesn't imply that "that raw observation is the definition of reality", as you seem to think. Put up or shut up, CANGAS. Find a quote from any relativity text that states that the perception of light by the observer is the fundamental principle of Relativity. Find a quote from any relativity text that states that raw observation is the definition of reality. Name one. But according to your on-the-record understanding of what Special Relativity is, Pete's model is not a variation of it - it makes none of the errors you bemoan for Einstein's relativity. Of course, I think that it's because you don't understand Einstein's relativity, but I'm willing to take the plunge and say that I've misunderstood it and that my model is the real deal. Want to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes?
Aggravation doesn't work for MacM, and it isn't going to work for you. And if you don't want to participate in the discussion, then what are you doing on this forum?
Hi CANGAS, Every time I have looked in a textbook at a spacetime diagram I have noticed that the lines of simultaneity are not the same direction as light pulse worldlines. I would recommend a little study of Einstein's synchronization procedure. Once two relatively stationary inertial clocks are synchronized it doesn't matter if information about their respective local events is encoded in light signals and transmitted or encoded on paper and sent FedEx. -Dale
Your recommendation to study Relativity makes as much sense as studying to become fluent in Latin. Relativity is dead. Wake up and smell the absolute motion.
Hello all As a reference to an "absolute reference frame" I submit the vector quantity "light ray" which is made up of photons travelling at "c" in the same direction in space. This "light ray" can then be used to measure the "relative" velocity of any object in space. If you had a "light ray" from object A to object B then there exits a relative velocity between the "light ray" and objects A or B. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In your case, studying anything could only result in an improvement. Yes, that's why all of the physicists on the planet use relativity in their research. Because it's dead.
Hi Tom Define "rest frame" for me. From the photon's point of view it is not moving and the rest of the universe is moving at light speed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
An object's rest frame is the frame of reference in which it is not moving. In order to arrive at that conclusion you would need to assume that Galilean relativity holds. But it doesn't hold, at least not in this universe. In this universe a light pulse travels at the speed of light, and it does so in every inertial frame. There is no coordinate transformation that can take you to the rest frame of the light, and so there is no sensible way in which you can talk about the photon's "point of view".
Hi Tom2 So you are saying that my "light ray" frame of reference is prohibited if you use the current accepted theories.
No, I'm saying that your "light ray" hypothesis is prohibited by the physics of this universe. Thought I was clear on that.
Tom2 says that photons gyre and gimble in the wabe. He apparently does not know exactly what they do. And so neither should you. Do they travel in a straight line at c after they are emitted? Tom2 says maybe so and maybe not, depending on how you look at them. It is much easier to prove Special Relativity if you will believe that photons go this way and that way, than if you logically believe that they go in a straight line at c after being emitted.
I see you're maintaining your record of ignoring substantive statements. How are you going with those relativity texts? Found anything to back up your assertions yet?
You are the one who has obviously read very few Relativity texts. Or few general physics texts. Post your references for photons going this way and that way and I'll read it tomorrow or sometime. After I read the comics I still like to read something to laugh at. Sayonara.
Sayonara. I did actually enjoy our discussions, CANGAS. It saddens me that you're reduced to bald insults, non-sequiturs, spelling pedantry, unsupported assertions, ad hominem insinuations, and vague allusions to half remembered statements in unspecified textbooks. If you do decide to continue, here's where we were up to: Bullshit. Perception of light by an observer is used extensively in relativity exercises as the fastest possible means of gathering information, but it is not "the fundamental principle". It also doesn't imply that "that raw observation is the definition of reality", as you seem to think. Put up or shut up, CANGAS. Find a quote from any relativity text that states that the perception of light by the observer is the fundamental principle of Relativity. Find a quote from any relativity text that states that raw observation is the definition of reality. Name one.
There is an absolute reference frame where "abberation of light" and absolute velocity is zero because mathematically you cannot rule it out. The problem is in trying to find said frame. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ROFL. Nice sound-bites there. You should run for office! You don't have to study too long to conclude that a photon worldline drawn at 45º is not also a simultaneity line drawn at 0º. -Dale
Pete: Texts have already been named. Is your memory, or, in the first first place place, your reading skill beyond redemption? Einstein's own book, titled (I think), Relativity. Bertrand Russel (one of Einstein's close friends and collaberators) in his book about Relativity. You have proved yourself to be, beyond any shadow of doubt, a very good debator WHEN ACTUAL FACTS ARE TOTALLY DISREGARDED.
Dale: Will you clarify for us what this seemingly jibberish talk about photons at 45 degrees means to you? What is your question? In English? Is your question somehow based on my comment to you that Special Relativity plainly states that the raw observation of light from the observed object is the basis of reality concerning the observed object? You have already disagreed with that, in spite of the fact that Einstein and every other respectable commentator about Relativity have published the same thing. What connection have you imagined between my comment and your jibberish about a 45 degree photon?
